Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Bristol Corporation Bill (by Order),

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Medway Conservancy Bill (by Order),

Port of London Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ROYAL INDIAN NAVY.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Royal Indian Navy is in the meantime to be entirely controlled by British officers; what proportion of commissions is to be held by Indians in the future; what measure will be taken
to train them for such appointments; and what the total cost of the Navy is estimated to be, as compared with the cost of the present Royal Indian Marine?

Mr. WINDSOR: 26.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what percentage of the commissioned ranks in the Indian Navy it is proposed to allocate to Indians?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 103.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what arrangements are to be made to train natives of India for commissions in the Royal Indian Navy?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is proposed that approximately one in every three future vacancies shall be reserved for Indians provided that suitably qualified candidates are forthcoming. Detailed proposals for training are contained in a Report which has been published in India and of which I will shortly have a copy placed in the Library. These proposals will receive further consideration. Under the financial proposals contained in the Report, the annual cost of the Royal Indian Navy is not likely to exceed greatly the corresponding cost of the Royal Indian Marine.

Mr. WARDLAW - MILNE: Can the Noble Lord say if the training to which he refers will be actual training at sea?

Earl WINTERTON: I prefer to see the Report, which has not yet come from India, before answering definitely. I am under the impression that it will include training at sea.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: what reason is there why the sons of Indian gentlemen should not be sent straight to Dartmouth—or a certain number of them—if they are able to pass the necessary examinations?

Earl WINTERTON: Because this proposal is for the formation of a separate Indian Navy, and therefore a scheme will be put into operation for the training of these men in India.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the Noble Lord aware that when the Dominion Navies were formed, King's cadetships were given to the sons of gentlemen in the Dominions, who formed a nucleus for officers for those Navies? Why should not that principle apply in this case?

Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman must have overlooked the fact that Australia has its own training scheme.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I refer to what happened long before that period.

Mr. WINDSOR: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the opinion of the Legislative Assembly has been sought or obtained on the question of the Indian Navy?

Earl WINTERTON: The recent publication of the scheme for a Royal Indian Navy will give the opportunity, which has not so far occurred, for eliciting the views of the Legislative Assembly, which will in due course be required to consider legislation on the subject.

Mr. THURTLE: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the estimated charge upon the Indian revenue involved in the maintenance of the Royal Indian Navy for the first year that unit is in existence?

Earl WINTERTON: If the recommendations of the Committee which examined this question in India are approved, the net cost of the Royal Indian Navy will be Rs.68,60,000.

Mr. THURTLE: Can the Noble Lord tell me what that is in sterling?

Earl WINTERTON: I should have to make rather a rapid sum in my head, but the hon. Member may take the value of a lakh of rupees at about £7,000. If he will give me some time, I will see what I can do.

Colonel APPLIN: 40.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the number of Anglo-Indians already serving in the mercantile marine afloat, their claims to serve in the proposed Indian Imperial Navy will receive favourable consideration?

Earl WINTERTON: All classes will receive consideration, and due weight will be given to previous nautical experience.

BOMBAY (RECLAMATION SCHEME).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now received the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the question of the Bombay Back Bay reclamation scheme; what part of the scheme it is now intended to proceed with; to what extent it will be abandoned; what the eventual loss will be in connection with the portion of the operations not to be proceeded with; and upon whom the loss will fall?

Earl WINTERTON: The Report is expected to reach the India Office next week. The question of the action to be taken on it is under the consideration of the Government of Bombay, upon whom will fall any loss in connection with the scheme.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the Noble Lord aware that the Report has been in this country for at least a week and in the hands of private individuals; and is it correct that Sir Alexander Gibbs is being sent out?

Earl WINTERTON: The reason why the Report has been in the hands of people in this country and not in those of my Noble Friend is that it is not a Report to my Noble Friend or to the Government of India, but is a Report to the Government of Bombay. The reason why it has not reached my Noble Friend is that it has first to be seen by the Government of India before a copy is sent officially to the Secretary of State. I
prefer to answer any further questions when the Report has been received and I have seen it.

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF PRIVY COUNCIL.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India again to submit to the Legislative Assembly the Resolutions defeated there on 3rd February recommending that the statutory appointees to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council from India should have recent knowledge of India law, and should receive a salary of £4,000 per year; and, if not accepted by the Assembly, what action the Government of India intend to take to bring about this reform in the interests of the people of India, in view of the proportion that these appeals bear to the work of the Privy Council?

Earl WINTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; as regards the second part, no action is intended by the Government of India at present, but His Majesty's Government are considering what steps can be taken with a view to increasing the number of members of the Judicial Committee having recent knowledge of Indian law.

MILITARY ADMINISTRATION.

Mr. KELLY: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether effect has been given by the Secretary of State to the recommendation of the Esher Committee that greater latitude should be given to the Governor-General in Council and the Commander-in-Chief in matters affecting internal military administration?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. KELLY: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether effect has been given to the Resolution of the Indian Legislative Assembly of March, 1921, recommending the appointment of the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of the General Staff in India on the nomination of the Secretary of State for India and after previous consultation with the Government of India and the War Office?

Earl WINTERTON: The accepted procedure in regard to these two appointments is in effect as stated in the
question, with certain minor modifications. I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Resolution of the Indian Legislative Assembly, 28th March, 1921:
That the Commander-in-Chief and the Chief of the General Staff in India should be appointed by the Cabinet on the nomination of the Secretary of State for India in consultation with the Government of India and the Secretary of State for War.

Procedure decided upon by His Majesty's Government:

The Commander-in-Chief is appointed by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for India with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for War.

The Chief of the General Staff is appointed by the Secretary of State for India (with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for War in the case of a British Service Officer) on the nomination of the Government of India.

Mr. GROVES: 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether effect has been given to the Resolution of the Legislative Assembly of March, 1921, recommending the restriction of direct communication between the Commander-in-Chief in India and the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to matters which would not involve the Government of India in financial or military obligations without their concurrence?

Earl WINTERTON: Rules are in force providing that such correspondence shall not cover matters which involve military or financial obligations.

PROVINCIAL POLICE FORCES.

Mr. GROVES: 9.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have been in communication with the provincial Governments as to the desirability of organising their police forces into special militia for the purposes of internal defence?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not aware of any proposal of the kind.

INDIAN AND BRITISH TROOPS (RATIO).

Mr. GROVES: 10.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what is the present ratio between the numbers of Indian and British troops in India?

Earl WINTERTON: The latest figures available gave 1 British to 2.41 Indians.

AKALI PRISONERS.

Mr. LANSBURY: 11.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that after the visit of Lala Bodh Raj to the Akali prisoners, and he had received complaints from the prisoners, the superintendent inflicted various disciplinary punishments on the prisoners who had complained; and if he will cause an inquiry to be held into the whole question of the administration?

Earl WINTERTON: I am aware that allegations to this effect were made in the Punjab Legislative Council. A committee has been specially appointed to investigate alleged abuses in the Punjab gaols, and the report on the state of discipline and the best means of remedying defects and stopping malpractices.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the report be presented to the House?

Earl WINTERTON: I could not inform the hon. Member whether it is to be presented technically to the House, but I propose to make the contents known to the House, and I can probably arrange to have a copy placed in the Library.

Mr. LANSBURY: 12.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if his attention has been drawn to the condition of the prisons in which Akali prisoners are interned; whether he is aware of the deficiencies in the medical equipment; and if he will cause an inquiry to be held so that the defects may be remedied?

Earl WINTERTON: Perhaps I may refer the hon. Member to the answer I have just given. Allegations have been made as to medical deficiencies also. My noble Friend is confident that the Punjab Government is thoroughly examining the condition of the gaols.

MALAY RUBBER PLANTATIONS (INDIAN WORKERS).

Mr. MONTAGUE: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether it is the intention of the Government of India to publish a report on the progress of its agent, resident in Malaya during the last two years, on behalf of the Indian workers on the European rubber plantations in that Colony; and, if not, whether he can give the House any information as
to the standard of wages paid to Indian workers on the plantations in Malaya and what improvements, if any, have been introduced by the resident agent as the result of his appointment by the Government of India?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not been informed of the intentions of the Government of India in the matter, but inquiry can be made if the hon. Member so desires. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed by the Colonial Office that owing to the diverse economic conditions in various parts of the Malay Peninsula wages differ considerably, but for ordinary labourers in the Federated Malay States the average daily rate for men varies from 35 to 50 cents and for women from 25 to 45 cents. In the Kuala Selangor district a minimum wage of 35 cents per diem for men and 27 cents for women was fixed in 1924, and the whole question of fixing basic standard rates is under consideration. The functions of the agent are to advise the Government of India and Indian immigrants, and he has no executive powers in Malaya.

RAILWAY WORKSHOPS COMMITTEE.

Mr. MONTAGUE: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the committee appointed by the Railway Board of the Government of India to inquire into the working of railway workshops includes any Indian member; whether this inquiry will be confined to those railways which are under the direct control of the Government of India; and whether this inquiry will include costs of manufacture as well as repairs to the rolling stock?

Earl WINTERTON: So far as I am aware, the committee of experts referred to does not include an Indian member. Its inquiry will be confined to State-managed railways, and will include the cost of manufacture of spare parts, but not of complete units of rolling stock.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS DELEGATION.

Mr. BATEY: 18.
asked the Under-Secretar of State for India why the practice of including a non-official Indian in the Indian delegation to the League of Nations, as followed in the previous years, was discontinued on the last occasion?

Earl WINTERTON: In settling the composition of each year's delegation, due consideration has to be given to a variety of circumstances. There is no established practice of the kind referred to.

DR. SUDHINDRA BOSE.

Mr. BATEY: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state why Dr. Sudhindra Bose has been refused re-entry into India; and whether the Govenment will now review his case?

Earl WINTERTON: Five years ago, when the person named was a citizen of the United States, permission was refused to him to visit India, for reasons then stated in this House. Since he reverted to Indian nationality there has been no obstacle to his return to India, and he can at any time obtain a certificate to enable him to travel to that country.

HOMICIDE CHARGE (CALCUTTA).

Mr. BATEY: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what sentence was passed by the magistrate at Calcutta last August on F. W. Smith for the homicide of two Indian workmen; and what was the decision of the Court of Appeal?

Earl WINTERTON: I have seen only a newspaper report of the case according to which a sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 was imposed by the magistrate on the accused for the offence of causing death by a negligent act, namely, by running over them in his car in May last. The accused appealed, and was acquitted by the Calcutta High Court in August, the defence being that there was no rashness or negligence.

SKEEN COMMITTEE.

Mr. WINDSOR: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to state when the Report of the Skeen Committee will be available to Members of the House?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir. The Committee has not yet reported.

EAST INDIAN RAILWAY (HARIPADA DEY).

Mr. SCURR: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the reason why
Haripada Dey, a clerk of the Public Works Department at Ikrah, has been dismissed from the East Indian Railway?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information on the subject.

Mr. SCURR: Will the Noble Lord obtain the information?

Sir HENRY CRAIK: On a point of Order. May I ask if the specific point raised in the question, which relates to a subordinate clerk, is not a matter that might be left to the local provincial government, instead of being made the subject of question and answer in this House?

Mr. SCURR: Are not the railways under the control of the central government, and therefore does not this matter come within the province of this House?

Earl WINTERTON: May I submit that this is the kind of question which, even before the Reforms Act was passed, did not come within the immediate cognisance of the Secretary of State, who, by invariable practice, left such matters to the discretion of the Government of India or the provincial government as the case might be. Since the Reforms Act was passed, as it is open to members of the Assembly or the provincial Councils to ask questions, make speeches and vote on such matters, I submit that it is not part of the duty of the Secretary of State to this House, as performed through me, to answer questions of this kind.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this not really a question of courtesy? Nearly all these questions would be ruled out if the doctrine just laid down were strictly followed. Is it not, however, the fact that the Noble Lord offered to make inquiries for us from India, on points such as this, in order that Members of this House might keep some check on what is going on there?

Mr. SPEAKER: The line of demarcation between reserved and non-reserved subjects always gives me a great deal of difficulty. I must confess I think this question is one which might have been left to be dealt with in India.

KING OF BELGIUM'S VISIT.

Mr. SCURR: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the visit of His Majesty the King of the Belgians
was made on the invitation of the Government of India; what was the cost of the provision of hospitality, and whether this cost is a charge on the Indian revenue?

Earl WINTERTON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. His Majesty's visit to India was purely private and unofficial. I understand that the total expenditure defrayed from Indian revenues was about £7,000.

MRS. MUKERJEE, NAGPUR.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can make any statement as to the threatened arrest of Mrs. Mukerjee, C. R. Das's daughter, at Nagpur by a plain clothes constable?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information beyond what has appeared in the Press.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it possible for the Noble Lord to get information on this point, which is arousing so much bitterness in India?

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, as a matter of courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman, I will make inquiries, and find out what I can.

MR. B. S. PATHIK.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Mr. B. S. Pathik, President Rajasthan Sevasangh, Ajmer, who is at present undergoing imprisonment at Udaipur; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the Government will make representations on his behalf?

Earl WINTERTON: The Secretary of State has received a report on the case. He sees no ground for suggesting to the Government of India that they should take any action in the matter.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the Noble Lord aware that this unfortunate person was sentenced by two Courts to a moderate sentence, and that finally the Rajah of the local State appointed a local Commission, which increased the sentence from one year to three years, and are we not responsible for the methods by which justice so-called is carried out in some of the native States?

Earl WINTERTON: I must strongly object to the use by the right hon. Gentleman of the term "justice so-called." The judicial jurisdiction of the native States is in the hands of the Rajahs and Assemblies, where there are any, in those States, and there is nothing in this case which, in the opinion of my Noble Friend, would justify intervention. The course taken would be the course of justice due to be taken in these cases, and it is only in very extreme cases, where there would appear to be a prima facie case for inquiry, that my Noble Friend would be prepared to take any action.

LIEUTENANT W. H. CHADWICK.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: 34.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if General Sangster, D.S.O., commanding the Burma Division, sent an appeal, during May, 1925, to the Adjutant-General, at Simla, regarding the case of Lieutenant W. H. Chadwick; if this was placed before the Secretary of State; and, if so, what action, if any, was ordered to be taken?

Earl WINTERTON: Mr. Chadwick's appeal of May, 1925, was withheld under the rules by the Government of India because it adduced no facts that had not been contained in a previous memorial which the Secretary of State in Council had considered and rejected. I may add that the whole case has been very carefully examined, and that my Noble Friend is satisfied that there is no reason to reverse or modify the decision of the Government of India. I can send the hon. Member a copy of the memorial rules if he desires.

Mr. MACLEAN: 35.
asked whether Lieutenant W. H. Chadwick asked his commanding officer at Bhamo, Upper Burma, in April, 1920, to endorse his papers with a view to securing a permanent commission in the Supply and Transport Corps; that his commanding officer endorsed his papers stating that he was a keen, intelligent, and business like officer recommended for the Supply and Transport Corps; that a week later Chadwick was handed a letter containing the statement that this officer was lacking in zeal and efficiency; whether he is aware that the major who wrote this sent in an appeal on 1st May, 1920, to the
general officer commanding asking permission to withdraw his statement regarding Chadwick's zeal and efficiency; and whether, in view of the conflicting statements, he will have an inquiry into the whole of the circumstances surrounding the dismissal of this officer?

Earl WINTERTON: As I stated in reply to the question asked by the hon. Member on 5th February, Mr. Chadwick was not dismissed. He was a temporary officer who applied for a permanent commission. All the relevant facts, including the two reports mentioned in the question, were fully investigated by the General Officer Commanding Burma District and higher military authorities and the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Rawlinson, after giving the application his personal consideration, was unable to recommend that a permanent commission should be granted to Mr. Chadwick. There is nothing to inquire into, and my Noble Friend does not intend to take any action.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that before this officer was discharged from the Army, he had signed on request papers for a further year's occupation with the regiment he was then with?

Earl WINTERTON: No; that is not really the point at issue between Lieutenant Chadwick and the military authorities. The point that is at issue is whether or not Lieutenant Chadwick is entitled to obtain a permanent commission, and it is quite clear from the Regulations that he is not. He was informed that he could not be given a permanent commission, and it is on that point that he petitioned the Secretary of State and has been writing letters, I think, to the newspapers.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that that is not the point at issue between ex-Lieutenant Chadwick and the India Office? Is it not a fact that the point at issue is that he has been dismissed on the ground that he is lacking in zeal and efficiency, although a week before that a report was signed stating that he was a zealous and efficient officer capable of, and suitable for, a permanent commission?

Earl WINTERTON: No; I can assure the hon. Member, as I have already stated, that Lieutenant Chadwick was
not dismissed. He applied for a permanent commission, and the military authorities, in the exercise of their discretion, did not think fit to grant it. My Noble Friend is not prepared to interfere.

MEDICAL SERVICE.

Colonel APPLIN: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the number of Indian subordinate medical officers qualified for promotion to commissioned rank in the Indian Medical Service awaiting gazette; and whether he can expedite the gazetting of these officers at an early date?

Earl WINTERTON: I am not precisely aware to what class my hon. and gallant Friend refers. If he will kindly supply further particulars I will have the case examined.

CEYLON PLANTATIONS (WAGES).

Mr. KELLY: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can state the result, if any, of the discussions between the Indian Government, the Ceylon Government, and the planting community of Ceylon, regarding the introduction of a standard wage for Indians working on plantations in Ceylon?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): Negotiations have been proceeding between the Indian and Ceylon Governments, and the latter have deputed the Controller of Labour to confer on the subject with the Government of India; but I have not yet received a report from the Governor of Ceylon on the result of the negotiations.

Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when his Department is likely to receive that report?

Mr. AMERY: No. As soon as it is received I shall let the hon. Member know.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA.

PORTUGUESE NATIVE LABOUR (RECRUITMENT).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the disclosures made in the American report of Dr. Ross upon the methods of
recruiting natives in Portuguese East Africa; whether this evidence is supported by British official and unofficial testimony; and, whether in these circumstances, he is prepared to make representations to the Governor of Kenya Colony that, before allowing the recuitment of Portuguese natives under indenture for Kenya Colony, he should satisffy himself that such labour is being recruited without the abuses that have been disclosed?

Mr. AMERY: I have read Dr. Ross's report, which embodies the evidence of various Europeans. I cannot say whether his conclusions are supported by British official testimony. In the circumstances, I can do no more than call the attention of the Governor of Kenya to the point raised by the hon. Member.

RAILWAYS (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. THURTLE: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the conscription of Akamba natives for work upon the Kenya Railway has given rise to domestic troubles amongst the natives; and whether he will consider the advisability of recommending that wives should be allowed to accompany their husbands when the latter are conscripted for labour on the railways in Kenya Colony?

Mr. AMERY: The hon. Member, apparently, has in mind the incident described, with its happy termination, on page 12 of the Paper, Cmd. 2573, but I may point out that in that case it was the unmarried girls who objected to the absence of the unmarried young men. I am not aware that, during the period of compulsory recruiting, wives have been prevented from accompanying their husbands, but in view of the short service, which must not exceed 60 days, it does not appear essential that they should do so, while their absence from the Reserve might seriously affect the cultivation of food crops.

NAIROBI (GOVERNMENT HOUSE).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the nature of the proposals to rebuild Government House at Nairobi; and whether the poor housing of many Government
employés will be taken in hand before money is laid out on Government House
itself?

Mr. AMERY: I have only just received the proposals for future building out of loan funds, and I have not yet been able to consider them. I may observe, however, that they contain provision of £586,430 for housing officials, both European and non-European, and that the proposals for new work at Government House include offices for the Governor and his staff, for the secretariat of the East African Governors' Conference, and a hall for the meetings of the Legislative Council of the Colony.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is it not a fact that it is proposed to assign £80,000 to the rebuilding of Government House?

Mr. AMERY: I think that is correct.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it desirable that loan funds which were to be for productive works should be used for building an additional palace for the Governor?

Mr. AMERY: I do not think it is the same loan fund.

NIGERIA (TRIAL OF NATIVES).

Lieut.-Commander KEN-WORTHY: 44 and 54.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether any and, if so, how many of the 453 natives tried and executed during the years 1920–24 applied to the Governor of Nigeria for the right to have their cases transferred to the Supreme Court; and why their appeals were rejected;
(2) whether it is the normal practice of the presiding officer at the Provincial Courts to make it clear to persons charged with capital offences in Nigeria that a right exists under which they can apply to the Governor for permission to have their cases transferred to the Supreme Court; and how many of the 453 natives tried and executed without being allowed to employ counsel in defence in the Provincial Courts were, in fact, informed of this right?

Mr. AMERY: The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. It is the Chief Justice, not the Governor, who decides applications by a party to a case in the Provincial Court to have that
case transferred to the Supreme Court. I do not know how many of the natives referred to so applied; but the Chief Justice in reporting last year on the success of the Provincial Court system in the Southern Provinces stated that
the natives have been informed of their right to apply to the Chief Justice to transfer a case to the Supreme Court, which transfer is always ordered in criminal cases when the accused is charged with a serious offence and desires to be defended by counsel, provided the case can conveniently be heard in a Supreme Court area.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman favourably consider having the matter made quite clear in the Courts themselves? He will be aware that there are allegations that this is not known among the natives, and will he have it looked into?

Mr. AMERY: I understand that it is made sufficiently clear and is known. Two additional Supreme Court areas have been created recently to meet the case.

AGRICULTURAL POLICY.

Mr. HURD: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that paragraph 14 of the White Paper on agricultural policy, while announcing the decision of the Government to include the home produce within the scope of the £1,000,000 grant to assist the marketing of Empire produce, makes no proposal to add a qualified representative of the British agricultural interest to the Imperial Economic Committee; and whether he will now make such an appointment?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am afraid that I cannot at present add anything to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 16th February last. The whole matter is under consideration, and I hope to make a statement in the near future.

Mr. HURD: Will it suit the convenience of my right hon. Friend if I put the question down for this day week?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly, but I will not undertake to give a definite answer then.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Are they going to consider the increasing of the grant?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like notice of that question.

NATIONAL ECONOMY (COLWYN COMMITTEE).

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Colwyn Economy Committee's Report will be published, and, if so, when it will be in the hands of Members?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, the Report being a Cabinet document. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Colonel DAY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister when Viscount Cave's Committee on the Reform of the House of Lords is likely to make its Report?

The PRIME MINISTER: This is a Cabinet Committee, and I cannot give any information in regard to it, beyond stating that the whole question is being carefully explored by the Government, whose proposals will be presented some time before the end of the present Parliament.

Colonel DAY: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Committee is nearing an end of its investigations?

The PRIME MINISTER: That would be directly contradictory of what I have already said in my reply.

PACIFIC CABLE BOARD.

Mr. HURD: 49.
asked the Prime Minister if any further communications have passed between His Majesty's Government and the Government of Canada respecting the differences on Pacific Cable Board policy; and if there is now a prospect of restoring the smooth working of the partnership between the Governments of the Empire?

Mr. AMERY: I have been asked to reply. I have seen in the Press references to a statement issued by the Postmaster-General of Canada indicating that he is not in agreement with the arrangements recently made by the Pacific Cable Board
for duplicating the Board's cables in the Pacific, but no official communication on this subject has been received by His Majesty's Government from the Canadian Government.

Mr. HURD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the exact position of the Cable Board, and is he able to do anything to bring about a restoration of harmony?

Mr. AMERY: I hope it may be satisfactorily settled on the Board, but, as I say, we have had no official communication from the Dominion Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the enormous importance to Empire communication of having high-power wireless stations at Vancouver and the Pacific, will the right hon. Gentleman urge our representative on the Pacific Cable Board to co-operate with the Canadian Government to urge wireless communication, rather than the laying of a second cable?

STATEMENT OF THE QUANTITY OF TOBACCO PRODUCED IN AND EXPORTED FROM THE BRITISH COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES IN THE YEARS 1913 AND 1924.


Colony or Protectorate.
1913.
1924.


Production.
Export.
Production.
Export.



Lbs.
Lbs.
Lbs.
Lbs.


British North Borneo*
2,304,576
—
1,310,090
1,282,331


Ceylon†
—
4,273,188
—
4,158,880


Cyprus
—
—
—
214,628


Fiji
81,984
50
51,461
80


Jamaica‡
—
43,303
—
65,436


Leeward Islands§
—
—
—
18


Nyasaland*
3,841,600
3,763,014
7,311,716
7,044,175


* The figures given relate to estate grown tobacco.


† 12,892 lbs. of cigars were exported from Ceylon in 1924.


‡ 88,245 lbs. of cigars were exported from Jamaica in 1924.


§ 25,038 cigars were exported from Virgin Islands in 1924.

WEST INDIES (AGRICULTURAL ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed that the Department of Agriculture of Trinidad and Tobago shall in the near future deal with the agricultural work in the islands of St. Lucia and St. Vincent as well as in Grenada?

Mr. AMERY: The amalgamation of the Agricultural Departments of Trinidad and

Mr. AMERY: These considerations were very much in the mind of the Pacific Cable Board when they decided to lay the cable.

CROWN COLONIES AND PROTECTORATES (TOBACCO).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the quantity of tobacco and cigars produced in the Crown Colonies and Protectorates for the years 1913 and 1924?

Mr. AMERY: As the reply to my hon. Friend s question can beet be given in tabular form, I will, with his permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving such information as is available.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, at any rate, that the quality is excellent?

Mr. AMERY: Oh, I think so, but I am not a smoker myself.

Following is the tabulated statement:

Grenada is in the nature of an experiment. I have informed the Governor of the Windward Islands that should the experiment prove successful in working, its extension to St. Vincent and St. Lucia will be considered after the lapse of a reasonable interval.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT.

Colonel DAY: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if, in view of
the inadequacy of the grants made to settlers in New Zealand by the Imperial Government, any action is contemplated with a view to emigrants being afforded facilities that will allow of successful settlement?

Mr. AMERY: The only contribution made by the Imperial Government towards migration to New Zealand is in reduction of the cost of passages. The New Zealand Government has not been prepared to enter into any agreement with respect to schemes for settlement upon the land. The question of the maximum amount that could be made available for each person settled upon the land has, therefore, not arisen.

Mr. HURD: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will invite the attention of the Canadian Government to the fact that in the month of January 1,751 applications, affecting some 2,500 individuals, were not accepted for migration to Canada under the scheme of assisted passages, and ask for their fuller co-operation in the training for overseas land settlement of capable and willing young townsmen whose unemployment constitutes the most difficult part of the British population problem?

Mr. AMERY: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in supposing that the applicants referred to have not been accepted for Canada. As I indicated in reply to the question which he put to me on the 15th February, these applications are still under consideration. In regard to the second part of the question, the Canadian Government is at present chiefly anxious to secure farm workers with experience. The question of providing some element of training for young townsmen willing to work on the land overseas is one which is engaging my attention.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total emigration in 1925 and the numbers that went to the Dominions respectively?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have been asked to reply. The British subjects who were recorded as leaving permanent residence in the United Kingdom to take up permanent residence in places outside Europe, numbered 140,594 in 1925. The
number recorded as intending to take up permanent residence in British North America was 38,662, in Australia 35,006, in New Zealand 11,730, and in British South Africa 7,004. Residence for a year or more is treated as permanent residence for the purpose of these returns.

IMPERIAL CONFERENCE.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 68.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has anything further to report with regard to the proposed Imperial Conference this autumn; and from which Dominions replies have already been received?

Mr. AMERY: The Prime Minister expects to be able to make an announcement on the subject shortly.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is it proposed to hold an economic conference as well as a purely political conference?

Mr. AMERY: The economic aspect of inter-Imperial relations will certainly be discussed. Whether it is desirable to have a separate conference is another matter.

MARRIAGE (LEGAL AGE).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to raise the legal age of marriage in this country?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. I have this matter under consideration, but am not at present in a position to make a statement.

COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Mr. THURTLE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister when he is prepared to give the House an opportunity of discussing the composition, powers, and status of the Committee of Imperial Defence?

The PRIME MINISTER: If there be a general desire for such a discussion, arrangements can be made through the usual channels.

IRISH LAND PURCHASE.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister what steps the Government intend taking to carry out the pledges given by Ministers of the Crown between 1920 and 1923 with regard to the completion of Irish land purchase; and whether the British Government were consulted as to the terms of the land measure which was passed by the Free State Government to deal with this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot accept the implication contained in the first part of the question. His Majesty's Government were, of course, aware of the terms of the legislation in question before it was passed, and the position of His Majesty's Government in this matter was explained in the course of the proceedings in the House in connection with the Irish Free State Land Purchase (Loan Guarantee) Bill of 1924.

Sir F. HALL: As the Prime Minister says he cannot accept the suggestion in the first part of the question, may I ask whether it is not a fact that, when Home Rule was granted, the Government undertook to bring in a Bill to deal with Irish land purchase, and whether they intend to do that or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no recollection of that.

Sir F. HALL: Then will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to look into it, seeing it is suggested that what I stated in the first part of the question is not right?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is going a long way. My hon. and gallant Friend will recognise that this is a subject far better dealt with in Debate than by question and answer, because the allegation made by my hon. and gallant Friend requires a little qualification.

RUBBER PLANTATIONS, STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (WAGES).

Mr. SCURR: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the wages paid to the male and female workers in the rubber plantations in the Straits Settlements?

Mr. AMERY: In 1924, the general rates of wages of Indian labourers on estates
in Singapore were as follows: tappers, male, 50 cents., female, 40 cents.; weeders, male, 45 cents., female 35 cents.; factory coolies, male, 60 cents. a day. Javenese and Chinese were usually employed on contract with rates ranging from 15 to 24 cents. a katty. I have no official particulars of wages for 1925 and subsequently.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand the wages are less than 1s. a day English money?

Mr. AMERY: I am not quite sure exactly how many cents. go to the shilling.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not the custom in dealing with India or other parts of the Empire, where the currency differs from that in this country, for Ministers in answering questions to give the equivalent in English?

Mr. SPEAKER: I fancy the exchange alters from time to time.

Mr. HARDIE: For that very reason I would press this as making the answers more intelligent to the House.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I suggest that only Members who understand the currency should ask these questions?

Mr. MACLEAN: Will only Ministers who understand the currency reply?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

PASSPORTS.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the passport system in Iraq is the cause of considerable complaint as passports can only be obtained in certain large towns to which applicants must come personally at great expense and loss of time; and whether he will promise any relief in the early future?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware that considerable complaint has been caused. If the hon. Member will bring any particular cases to my notice, I shall be glad to look into them.

Mr. THURTLE: Is this question in order? Is not Iraq a sovereign State?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know if the issue of passports is a local matter or not, but I think the question is a proper one.

REFUGEES.

Mr. BUXTON: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the approximate number of refugees who have crossed the Turkish frontier into Iraq since 1920; and what provision is made by the Iraq Government for those unable to support themselves?

Mr. AMERY: There have been two main influxes of Christian refugees into Iraq since 1920. These were occasioned first by the Turkish incursion in the autumn of 1924, as a result of which some 8,000 Assyrian Christians sought refuge in Iraq; and, secondly, by the Turkish deportations of September last, from which, approximately, 3,000 Chaldean Christians escaped into Iraq. I am informed that the Iraq Government have provided about £26,000 for the relief of these refugees, exclusive of amounts expended upon the free distribution of seed grain.

EXPORT CREDITS (POLAND AND YUGO-SLAVIA).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 69 and 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) in how many cases in 1925 the Export Credit Department gave credits for firms dealing with Poland; what was the amount of credit involved; how many applications were refused; and in how many cases, if any, was there any loss to the Department;
(2) In how many cases in 1925 the Export Credit Department gave credits for firms dealing with the kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes; what was the amount of the credit involved; how many applications were refused; and in how many cases, if any, was there any loss to the Department?

Mr. SAMUEL: In 1925 the Export Credits Department gave credit for 44 transactions with Poland and 18 with Yugo-Slavia, involving in all £240,639 in the one case and £107,573 in the other. Twenty-nine applications were refused for Poland and seven for Yugo-Slavia. The Department has had to make payment on
its guarantees in three cases for Poland and in one for Yugo-Slavia. Negotiations are in progress in every case with a view to securing repayment, and there is no reason to anticipate the loss of any appreciable sum.

Sir F. WISE: Will repayment be in pounds sterling?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, Sir; the whole of the transactions are in pounds sterling.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Why not in Polish pounds?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN TYPEWRITERS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 72.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if foreign typewriters on which British patents have been taken out are imported as complete machines or assembled in this country; and whether he will inform the House the number of firms in the British Empire manufacturing typewriting machines which are used in Government offices in London?

Mr. SAMUEL: So far as I am aware, foreign typewriters are not imported in parts and assembled in this country. I am informed by the Stationery Office that three firms in the British Empire manufacture typewriting machines which are used in Government offices in London.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not the fact that by the Patents and Designs Act, 1919, foreign patents should be cancelled if they continue to be worked outside the United Kingdom?

Mr. SAMUEL: Broadly speaking, I think that is the law.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Why is it not carried out?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not know that it is not carried out.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman continue to see that the best and cheapest typewriters are engaged in Government offices, no matter what their origin?

Colonel Sir ARTHUR HOLBROOK: 115.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of typewriters of foreign manufacture used in the Govern-
meat offices; and whether he will consider the issue of instructions that only typewriters of British manufacture shall in future be supplied to public Departments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): Of the typewriters in use at the present time in Government offices approximately 24,700 are of foreign manufacture. They were nearly all purchased during the War at a time when no satisfactory British machine was available. Since the War the requirements of the Departments have been met almost entirely from the large stock which became surplus at the Stationery Office when the War ended, and if economy is to be studied they should continue to be so met in the main for a few years. Nevertheless the Stationery Office have acquired small numbers of British machines and will continue to do so. They are making prolonged tests of the efficiency and durability of the machines of home manufacture and are anxious to find a satisfactory machine for future requirements.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the city offices do not require a vast amount of testing with regard to these typewriters? They are perfectly aware of the nature of the typewriters which they use, and would that not be so in the Stationery Office?

Mr. McNEILL: The requirements of a Government Office are quite different.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the commercial houses in the City there are all sorts of requirements, so that there cannot be any difference in the case of the Stationery Office?

Mr. BECKETT: Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department received any representations from Buckingham Palace with regard to buying typewriters?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what typewriters are used for in Government Departments?

An HON. MEMBER: Speed limit!

Mr. McNEILL: For doing typewriting work.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask, not arising out of the last
answer but out of the original answer, is the Financial Secretary to the Treasury bearing in mind the danger of a ring of British typewriter manufacturers, and is he proposing to confine Government purchases to British makers only irrespective of cost or quality?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir; I am assiduously bearing that in mind.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to give encouragement to the three British firms whenever he can?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes, Sir.

Captain GEE: Is it not a fact that there are sufficient typewriters which have been reconstructed as a result of the War to last the Stationery Office for many years to come?

Mr. McNEILL: The stock to be drawn upon will, in normal circumstances, probably last for about another two years.

FURNITURE.

Sir W. de FRECE: 86.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether his Department stores any furniture used by war-time Departments now coming to an end; and whether in that case it is, for the purposes of economy, used to fit out new sections of Departments which may be brought into existence by fresh legislation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Captain Douglas Hacking): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; returned furniture, when of suitable type and condition, is reissued for use by additional staffs.

MINISTRY OF LABOUR (STATISTICS DEPARTMENT).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 87.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to reduce the expenditure of the Statistics Department of the Ministry in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Estimates, dated 27th May, 1925?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): The only recommendation made by the Select Committee in this connection was to the effect that expense
could be saved by concentrating the headquarters staff of the Ministry, which at present is housed in widely-separated premies. Arrangements are in hand with this object in view, but I am not sure that it can be applied at present to the Statistics Department.

Colonel WOODCOCK: May I ask if the Ministry mean to carry out the scheme that was suggested? It was a very good scheme, and it would save a lot of money.

Mr. BETTERTON: As I said in the answer, the premises of the Ministry are being concentrated, and buildings are being put up for that purpose, but whether the Statistics Department will be one of those so concentrated I cannot say now.

REPARATION COMMISSION.

Sir F. WISE: 114.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost for 1925 of the reparation staff, offices, etc., under the Dawes Scheme?

Mr. McNEILL: During the year 1925 the total costs of the Reparation Commission and of the Office for Reparation Payments in Berlin amounted to approximately £405,000, of which £191,000 was in respect of the Reparation Commission and £214,000 in respect of the Office for Reparation Payments.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 73.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the estimated number of cows and heifers that have had one or more calves in England, Scotland and Wales, respectively, and the estimated annual yield of milk of such animals?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The numbers of cows and heifers in England, Scotland and Wales on 4th June, 1925, which had had one or more calves were


England
…
…
2,034,162


Scotland
…
…
398,124


Wales
…
…
300,556


The tabulation of the returns of the production of milk, which were collected
last year, is not yet complete, but it is hoped to publish the results in the course of the year.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Do any of these cows receive the King's Bounty?

TUBERCULIN TEST.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 74.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give figures showing the number of milch cattle that have been subjected to the tuberculin test within the past year, and the number that have been re-acted?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply to this question, since there are very few official records of tuberculin tests other than those carried out for the purpose of the Milk (Special Designations) Order. The number of cows tested for this purpose in 1924 was about 6,000, the majority of which had already passed the test on one or more previous occasions, and the number which reacted in that year was 732. In 1925 the number tested and re-tested was nearly 7,500, but I am not yet able to state the number of re-actors.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the numbers submitted to this test would be much higher if the fees were more reasonable? Will he reconsider that?

Sir K. WOOD: That is another question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.

LAND DRAINAGE SCHEMES.

Mr. MACLEAN: 75.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can state the relative proportions of the expenditure borne by the landowner and by public funds in connection with drain age schemes for the relief of unemployment?

Mr. GUINNESS: During the present season, the Ministry's land drainage schemes for the relief of unemployment have been confined to schemes organised by county councils, in areas where no statutory drainage authorities exist. The Government are finding the whole cost of the schemes in the first instance, and 40 per cent. of that cost is recoverable from the landowners concerned within six months of completion.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand from that reply that the landlords are putting 60 per cent. into their own pockets?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, Sir, not at all.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then who gets the rest of it?

Mr. GUINNESS: The 60 per cent. is paid on schemes, not for one particular landlord, but in combination, for the district.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then the whole benefit of the drainage goes to the landlords?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Brigadier-General WARNER: 77.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the possibility of foot-and-mouth disease being brought into England by imported vegetables, he is prepared to introduce legislation to prevent vegetables entering this country from foreign countries where this disease is known to be rampant?

Mr. GUINNESS: In the absence of direct evidence incriminating foreign vegetables as a source of introduction of foot-and mouth disease, I do not think that the adoption of my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal could be justified. The possibility of infection from such a source is being carefully watched.

RESEARCH WORK.

Mr. BUXTON: 78.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps the Government are taking to disseminate among farmers in popular form the results of research, as promised by Lord Bledisloe in July, 1925?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the recently issued Report of the Intelligence Department of the Ministry, of which I am sending him a copy, and particularly to pages 13 and 14, where the various agencies and methods are described and discussed. I may add to the details there given that the revised edition of the pamphlet, "Agricultural Research and the Farmer," is in an advanced state of preparation, and will be issued shortly; and that four monographs have now been published in the special series by research institutes.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the Minister see that the information is available for Members of the House?

Mr. GUINNESS: These are Stationery Office publications, and under the Rule of the House, which has been in force for some years, it is only possible to obtain the publications by application to the Stationery Office, and on the ground that they are necessary for a Member's Parliamentary work.

Captain GEE: Would it not be better if Ministers refused to answer questions when the information desired can be obtained on application to the Vote Office?

ARABLE STOCK FARMING (EXPERIMENTS).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 79.
asked the Minister of Agriculture at what places experiments dealing with arable stock farming are now in operation under the direct or indirect control of the Ministry?

Mr. GUINNESS: Experiments on arable stock farming, aided by the Ministry, are being conducted at the following places:

Hucknall, Nottinghamshire;
Denham, Middlesex;
Resparveth, Cornwall;
Reaseheath, Cheshire;
Newport, Salop;
Rawcliffe, Yorkshire.
In addition the Oxford Institute of Research in Agricultural Economics has made arrangements to observe and obtain records and accounts of eight other farms in different parts of the country. No experiments of this nature are now under the direct control of my Department.

Mr. BUXTON: Has anything been done by way of grants to independent farmers to encourage experiments by them?

Mr. GUINNESS: I should like to have notice of that question.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Have any accounts or results been published in relation to these experiments, and may we know them?

Mr. GUINNESS: As soon as we are in a position to make a report we shall do so.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Are any experiments being carried out in Scotland?

Mr. GUINNESS: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

SUGAR BEET.

Sir W. de FRECE: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can give the amount paid per ton to sugar-beet growers by the sugar manufacturers in this country; and if he has comparative figures for the amounts per ton paid to sugar-beet growers in all other European countries where sugar beet is grown?

Mr. GUINNESS: The price in the beet contract varies according to the average sale price of sugar, with a minimum agreed with the National Farmers' Union of 54s per ton delivered at the factory in the case of a period contract and 49s. per ton for a one-year contract. The price, whether calculated on the average sale price of sugar or at the minimum price, whichever is the greater, varies according to the sugar content in the beets delivered, at the rate of 2s. 6d. for each 1 per cent. above or below 15½ per cent. sugar content. The price in European countries also varies to some extent according to the sugar content in the beets and the average sale price of sugar, but, from the best available information, the ruling figure would appear to be from 25s. to 30s. per ton.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, taking out an average of the sugar percentage, 13 to 14 per cent. of the amount of the subsidy that the Government are paying is actually more per ton on the sugar beet than the farmer is getting?

Mr. GUINNESS: Naturally it was expected that the factories would need a subsidy to enable them to face the expense of putting up plant in a new industry.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we are, therefore, providing out of the subsidy the whole of the raw material for this industry free of charge?

ST JAMES'S PARK LAKE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 81.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home
Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, what is the nature of the operations now taking place in the bed of the lake in St. James's Park and what is the estimated cost of the work?

Captain DOUGLAS HACKING (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The lake has been emptied for cleaning away sediment, and examining and attending to the expansion joints in the concrete bottom. The total estimated cost of the work is £650.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it a fact that, at the cost of £30,000 only a couple of years ago, a ferro-concrete bed was laid in the lake, and is it the case that the lake now leaks?

Captain HACKING: It is correct to say the bed has leaked, but it does not now leak, and arrangements are being made to see that it will not leak in the future.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: In the interests of humanitarianism, are the subtracted fish being cared for during this process?

Mr. MARSH: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the country has to pay for inefficient work, or has the contract been carried out under guarantee?

Captain HACKING: The construction was suggested by the Office of Works, and not by any contractor.

RUSSIA (BRITISH GOVERNMENT PROPERTY).

Commander WILLIAMS: 82.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state what was the total value of British Government furniture, plate, effects, etc., lost in Petrograd and Moscow claimed by the Mission sent to Russia?

Captain HACKING: The value of the Government furniture left in Petrograd when the British Mission evacuated the building was assessed at £10,000. The plate, valued at £18,000, has not been recovered. There was, in addition, property of Government officials and other Departments of which my Department has no complete record. No Government property existed at Moscow. Government furniture to the value of
approximately £8,500 was recovered recently in addition to property which had belonged to Embassy officials and other Government Departments.

Commander WILLIAMS: May I ask what chance there is of making any further recovery?

Captain HACKING: We hope to get some more.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ask for some more soon?

Captain HACKING: We have not by any means given up hope of getting some more.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: 94.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Government has handed over to representatives of the British Government the contents of the British Embassy in Petrograd; whether the official furniture and effects were handed over intact; whether the valuables and effects of British citizens deposited in the Embassy for safe custody of the British Ambassador were handed back intact by the Soviet Government; and what is the value of the private effects returned by the Soviet Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The Soviet Government have handed over to representatives of His Majesty's Government the articles contained in the former British Embassy at the time of the arrival of these representatives in Leningrad. The answers to the second and third parts of the question are in the negative. I regret that I have not sufficient information to reply to the fourth part of the question.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Do I understand that something is still due to us under one or other of these headings?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, I un-understand that there is a great deal due.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to try to get us some more in the near future.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: At the present moment inquiries are proceeding.

Commander WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman say approximately how much is due to us?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is very difficult to say, but one of the things missing is a very large service of gold plate.

MEMBERS' LOBBY (ANNUNCIATOR).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 84.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will take into consideration the placing of an annunciator in the Members' Lobby for the additional convenience of Members?

Captain HACKING: The whole question of annunciators was considered recently, when an additional one was placed in the Map Room, and the First Commissioner regrets that on grounds of expense he cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me what the amount is, and whether he will accept subscriptions towards it?

Captain HACKING: The initial cost is £180, and it costs about £50 a year for working and maintenance.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE FUND (TREASURY ADVANCES).

Mr. REMER: 88.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the amount of the over draft on the Treasury for the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

Mr. BETTERTON: The amount of advances outstanding on 18th February, 1926, was £7,580,000.

SHORT-TIME WORKERS, DERBY.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: 89.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the Derby Trades Council have registered a strong protest against the action of the Derby and Long Eaton Employment Exchanges in refusing to allow short-time workers normally employed on Saturdays to sign on for that day; and whether he will take steps to remove this grievance?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have received a copy of the resolution passed by the Derby and District Trades Council, and am having inquiry made.

INSURED PERSONS.

Sir F. WISE: 90.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the increase in numbers of insured people in 1925 for unemployment benefits?

Mr. BETTERTON: The estimates of the numbers of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts are computed once a year from information obtained in connection with the annual exchange of unemployment books in July, and consequently they relate to the position at July of each year. The estimated increase between July, 1924, and July, 1925, in the numbers insured in Great Britain is 219,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA.

COMPENSATION TO BRITISH COMPANIES.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 91.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state if His Majesty's Government has yet arranged with the Rumanian Government as regards the method of payment of compensation to British companies whose properties were destroyed by the British Commission more than nine years ago; whether any payments have yet been made in respect of such compensation to any such British company or companies, and, if so, to which and to what amounts; and, having regard to the urgency of a settlement to many of these companies he can state when such compensation or the balance of such compensation will be paid?

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I am informed that the Rumanian Government have decided to compensate the companies whose oilfields in Rumania were damaged in 1916. The method of payment of compensation is a matter for settlement between the Rumanian Government and the companies concerned, and I understand that discussions are now taking place. So far as I am aware, no payments have yet been made by the Rumanian Government, but I understand that it is their intention to commence payments during the present year.

CAISSE COMMUNE INTEREST PAYMENTS.

Mr. LOOKER: 92.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state the extent to which the interest payments of the Caisse Commune will be diminished owing to the refusal of Rumania to sign the Innsbruck Protocol and the consequent non-receipt of the Rumanian quota, and whether His Majesty's Minister at Bucharest has indicated to the Rumanian Government the effect on Rumania's credit which is likely to result from a continuance of such refusal?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I regret that I am unable to state the precise amounts payable annually by Rumania under the Innsbruck Protocol. The prejudicial effect on Rumania's credit which must result from a continuance of her refusal to sign the Innsbruck Protocol has repeatedly been indicated to the Rumanian Government by His Majesty's Government and by the other Governments concerned.

CHINA (SHAMEEN INCIDENT).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 93.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the evidence which has satisfied him that the first firing in the Shameen affair of June last was from the Chinese upon the Europeans?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The matter is under consideration.

WAR PENSIONS (CHILDREN'S EDUCATION GRANTS).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 95.
asked the Minister of Pensions what was the total amount of grants made by the Special Grants Committee towards the cost of education of the children of deceased and disabled officers during the past year, and the amount in respect of the children of deceased and disabled men?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): I am unable to state the amount of the grants made by the Special Grants Committee during the period referred to, but the total value of the grants made which were in issue during the year ended 31st December last was, in respect of officers' children, £15,056, and in respect of children of
non-commissioned ranks, £80,099. In addition, expenditure was incurred under the Royal Warrant in respect of education of officers' children amounting to £78,700.

SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION.

Mr. LANSBURY: 96.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the outbreak of small-pox in the years 1901–02 coincides with an increase in the number of vaccinations performed in consequence of the passing of the Vaccination Act, 1898; and whether he will state the number of cases of smallpox notified in the years 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1903, and 1904, and the number of infants vaccinated out of every hundred born in each of those years?

Sir K. WOOD: It is the fact that the total numbers of vaccinations and revaccinations performed during the years 1901–12 at the cost of the rates was considerably in excess of the numbers in previous years. But as the primary object of the Vaccination Act, 1898, was to exempt from penalties parents who obtained certificates of conscientious objection to vaccination, this increase cannot, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, be attributed to the passing of that Act, but rather to the fact that when smallpox is prevalent, as in 1901–02, it is usually found that large numbers of persons seek the protection afforded by vaccination. As regards the last part of the question, figures are not available showing the number of cases of small-pox notified during the years in question, but I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the percentage of vaccinations to births in each of those years.

Following is the statement:


Percentage of Vaccinations to Births.


Year.




Percentage.


1897
…
…
…
…
62.4


1898
…
…
…
…
61.0


1899
…
…
…
…
66.4


1900
…
…
…
…
68.7


1901
…
…
…
…
71.4


1902
…
…
…
…
74.8


1903
…
…
…
…
75.4


1904
…
…
…
…
75.3

Commander WILLIAMS: 99.
asked the Minister of Health what steps he is
taking to inform the public of the efficiency of vaccination against smallpox, particularly in those areas where there is any sign of this disease?

Sir K. WOOD: It is the duty of the local authorities of areas in which any case of small-pox occurs to urge the importance of vaccination and the efficiency of this method of protection against small-pox, and it is the usual practice of the local authorities to take these steps.

Commander WILLIAMS: May I inquire whether the hon. Gentleman will let the figures regarding the Durham District, which were given the other day, be very widely known among the local authorities?

Sir K. WOOD: I think my hon. Friend had better put down a question.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether it is not a fact that some medical men in the two districts in the North, where it is suggested small-pox is prevalent, disagree entirely, and think that it is not small-pox at all?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman had better put that question down. As the hon. Member knows, in a particular area, where there was an industrial dispute, the outbreak of small-pox was not so severe as in adjoining areas.

CONGESTED AREAS.

Mr. GILLETT: 98.
asked the Minister of Health how soon he expects to be in a position to inform the House as to what are the Government's new proposals for dealing with the congested areas in London and the great cities?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend regrets that he is not in a position to make any statement at the moment.

JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, BUCKINGHAMSHIRE.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 104.
asked the Attorney-General the names of the advisory committee of the Lord Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, appointed for the purpose of advising as to new Justices of the Peace, and what
Petty Sessional Divisions of the county they represent; whether there have been any changes in the constitution of the body recently, and, if so, what; and how many times the committee has met during the last two years?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): As the answer contains a list of names, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The advisory committee for the County of Buckingham consists of the Lord Lieutenant (Lord Cottesloe) and the following members:

The Most Honourable the Marquess of Lincolnshire, G.C.M.G., who resides in the Petty Sessional Division of Desborough.
The Right Honourable Lord Parmoor, K.C.V.O., who resides in the Petty Sessional Division of Desborough.
Lord Anslow, C.B., who resides in the Petty Sessional Division of Stoke.
Sir Herbert Samuel Leon, Baronet, who resides in the Petty Sessional Division of Fenny Stratford.
Victor William Knight, Esquire, J.P., who resides in the Petty Sessional Division of Chesham.
M. Cook, Esquire, who resides in the Petty Sessional Division of Stony Stratford.
Lady Susan Trueman, O.B.E., J.P., who resides in the Petty Sessional Division of Chesham.
L. H. West, Esquire, O.B.E., who resides in the Petty Sessional Division of Winslow.
The members are not appointed to represent particular Petty Sessional Divisions. They are selected from amongst persons having a good general knowledge of the whole of the county. The last appointment to the committee was made in December, 1924, when Mr. West was appointed to a vacancy caused by the resignation of the Earl of Buckinghamshire. The Lord Chancellor understands that the committee has met at least four times during the last two years.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PLAYING FIELDS, EALING.

Miss WILKINSON: 105.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board is withholding its consent to the purchase of a playing field for the new county school for girls at Ealing as part of the policy of Memorandum 44, and where it is intended to advise the authority that the girls should play their games?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension. The site proposed by the authority was housing land, of which there appears to be a shortage in the neighbourhood, and, accordingly, after consulting my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, my Noble Friend suggested to the authority, early last November, that they might endeavour to secure a part of the sports area of Gunnersbury Park as a playing field for the school. The authority have explained to me the difficulties which they feel in adopting this suggestion, and my Noble Friend is considering the matter further.

Mr. MARCH: Is it not the fact that the reference to housing is a second thought on the part of the Council? Was is not intended at first for playing fields?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not think it is for me to give an answer as to what the Council first thought.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the Noble Lady think it desirable that part of a public park should be used for the purposes of a secondary school when there is other land available?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not also a fact that at least 50 acres of Gunersbury Park are going to be devoted to playing fields?

OPEN-AIR SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 108.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is as a result of Memorandum 44 that the Board has refused sanction to the Cambridge Education Authority for the construction of an open-air school; and for how long this decision will operate?

Duchess of ATHOLL: No, Sir; because the Board has not refused its sanction.

TEACHING STAFF (BROMLEY, KENT).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 109.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give the figures of the size of the teaching staff in Bromley, Kent, which he has told the authority are comparatively high?

Duchess of ATHOLL: A relatively high standard of staffing, and, therefore, of cost, is the result of a number of factors which it is hardly possible to explain within the limits of an answer to a question. I may, however, say that of the English authorities paying Scale IV of the Burnham Scales, 22 show a lower figure than Bromley for the cost per child of teachers' salaries calculated upon the authority's estimate of their salary expenditure in 1925–26, and only five show a higher figure.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MILITARY HOSPITALS RESERVE (PHARMACISTS).

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 110.
asked the Secretary of State for War if pharmacists will be invited to join the Military Hospitals Reserve; and, if so, is he prepared to give a pledge that, in the event of mobilisation, such pharmacists will not be required to fulfil their specialist duties under the orders of an Army dispenser whose pharmaceutical knowledge and training is inferior to that of the pharmacist?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I cannot give any pledge as to what might happen in hypothetical circumstances.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that every first and second rate Power in Europe possesses the power we are asking for in this question?

Captain GEE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the Army Estimates, he will make provision so that the present dispensers in the Army may be allowed a grant to train and become qualified pharmacists according to the law of the country, in order that soldiers may have their medicines dispensed by qualified men, as is the case in the Navy?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: That is a question which contains much controversial matter. I do not say that I will include any grant in the Estimates for this purpose, but I shall be quite prepared to discuss the matter in detail with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he likes.

DISCHARGES (MISSTATEMENT OF AGE).

Colonel DAY: 111.
asked the Secretary of State for War the number of applications made during the last three years for discharges from the forces on the grounds that lads had made false statements as to age when enlisting; the number of free discharges allowed in such cases; and the average cost incurred to purchase the discharge of a trained, or partly trained, lad enlisting under age?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The number of applications is not recorded, but the number of recruits who were discharged on account of their age having been misstated on enlistment was as follows:


In 1922–23
…
…
…
711


In 1923–24
…
…
…
793


In 1924–25
…
…
…
560


In these cases the recruits, having been found to be under 17 years of age, were given a free discharge. The sums required to purchase the discharge of a recruit or a trained soldier will be found in the pay warrant.

Colonel DAY: Will the Secretary of State for War consider the advisability of instructing the recruiting officers to insist upon birth certificates being produced in regard to this matter?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I understand that all necessary instructions have been given.

JEWEL ROBBERIES.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 112.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of jewel robberies re ported in 1924 and in 1925 from private persons and from jewellery firms, respectively; what was the respective value of goods stolen; how much was recovered; and what was the approximate cost to the State of the efforts to trace the burglars?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The information is not in my possession, and in present circumstances I could not ask the various police authorities to embark upon the very considerable task of collecting the particulars necessary for obtaining it.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Has not very much of this crime been caused by preaching disregard for the law?

TRADE FACILITIES (RENEWAL OF MACHINERY).

Mr. GILLETT: 113.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any loans have been guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act to firms for the purpose of renewal of machinery; and, if so, to what amount?

Mr. R. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is not easy to isolate those particular guarantees which resulted in the renewal of machinery, but the total cannot be less than £200,000.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: May I ask the Prime Minister how far he proposes to go with the business to-day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that it will be necessary to ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule to-day. Hon. Members will have observed that the time from 8.15 is to be taken up by a Private Bill. I am informed that there are several Private Bills which will have to be put down between now and Easter, and which will interfere unavoidably with the progress of Public Business. I hope, however, that we shall get in Committee the two Financial Resolutions on the Paper, and after that seven of the Reports which I think are more or less non-controversial, that is to say, the Report of Supply of the 9th and 10th February, and the first three Votes of the 15th February, not taking the Mines Department Vote, because I think that may possibly require some discussion.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 92.

Division No. 35.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, E. T.
Fermoy, Lord


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Forrest, W.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fraser, Captain Ian


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Clarry, Reginald George
Frece, Sir Walter de


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Gates, Percy


Balniel, Lord
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cope, Major William
Goff, Sir Park


Berry, Sir George
Couper, J. B.
Gower, Sir Robert


Betterton, Henry B.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islingtn. N.)
Grace, John


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Blundell, F. N.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brass, Captain W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hammersley, S. S.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hanbury, C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Briscoe, Richard George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Harrison, G. J. C.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hartington, Marquess of


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. Berks, Newb'y)
Elveden, Viscount
Hawke, John Anthony


Buckingham, Sir H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bullock, Captain M
Everard, W. Lindsay
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Smithers, Waldron


Herbert, S. (York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hills, Major John Waller
Margesson, Captain D.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Merriman, F. B.
Stanley, Lord (Flyde)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Holt, Captain H. P.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Moles, Thomas
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hudson, Capt. A.U.M. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Tinne, J. A.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Murchison, C. K.
Litchfield, Major the Marquees of


Huntingfield, Lord
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hurd, Percy A.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Jacob, A. E.
Oakley, T.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Warrender, Sir Victor


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Owen, Major G.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Penny, Frederick George
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wells, S. R.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Ramsden, E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Williams, Com. C.(Devon, Torquay)


Lamb, J. Q.
Remer, J. R.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Remnant, Sir James
Williams, Herbert G.(Reading)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Ropner, Major L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Loder, J. de V.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynamouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Looker, Herbert William
Salmon, Major I.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wolmer, Viscount


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Mac Andrew, Charles Glen
Sandon, Lord
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sassoon Sir Philip Albert Gustave D
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


McLean, Major A.
Savery, S. S.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)



Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir H. Barnston.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)



NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Scurr, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shields, Dr. Drummond


Bar, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon- A. (Burnlay)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Snell, Harry


Briant, Frank
Hirst. G. H.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
March, S.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Mr. T. Kennedy and Mr. Charles Edwards.


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Rose, Frank H.



Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)

BLASPHEMY LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL,

"to amend the Blasphemy Laws," presented by Mr. LANSBURY; support by
Mr. Snell, Mr. Thurtle, Mr. Dunnico, Dr. Salter, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Scurr, and Mr. Wallhead; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to conform an agreement, dated the tenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-six, and made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland with a view to assimilating the burdens on the Exchequers of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland with respect to unemployment insurance, and to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums certified by the Joint Exchequer Board to be payable under the said agreement from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom."—(King's Recommendation signified.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): It is, naturally, an invidious task to have to ask the House to undertake substantial fresh expenditure, not only this year, but, in all probability, in future years. The Committee will, I have no doubt, realise that only the most serious and valid reasons would have induced the Government to make such a proposal to Parliament. Let us see quite shortly what those reasons are. In the first place, I think it right to ask the Committee to bear in mind the fact that all the inconveniences and difficulties from which Ulster has suffered arose not from any wish of her people. On the contrary, Ulster did not ask for any constitutional change. She was perfectly content to remain in the United Kingdom, and it was only because of the strong movement of Imperial policy and many tragic events, on which I do not intend to dwell, that in 1920 Ulster consented to defer to the wish of the Imperial Parliament and to set up a House of her own. From the moment that this took place, from the moment that it was quite clear that Ulster was not in any way standing in the way of the aspirations of the rest of Ireland, but was deferring to the general requirements of Imperial policy, it has always seemed to me that a very strong obligation
rested upon Parliament to secure her reasonable help in the difficult and critical years attending the creation of this new Government.
There is another general observation which I will venture to make, and I make it for the benefit, not indeed of any Member of this House, but of the less well-informed portion of the public out of doors. It is occasionally asked: "Why does Ulster want to come for money to this House? Why does she not live on her own revenue, like the South of Ireland?" Of course, I am bound to put on record the actual facts. There is a substantial contribution paid by Ulster to the Imperial Parliament. In the first place, this contribution was fixed at about £7,000,000 sterling; but it was fixed on the inflated standards of 1920 and 1921, and it was provided that the Joint Exchequer Board might scale this contribution down to what was found to be proper and just. Very large remissions of taxation have been made since then which, of course, affect the scale of the contribution, and it has now been reduced by the Joint Exchequer Board to something under £3,000,000 a year. During these early years there have been very heavy charges on account of the special police, on account of the public buildings which are being erected, and on account of payments for compensation; but, after all those charges have been met, there has still been an average balance to the British Exchequer over the period of approximately £1,250,000 a year, and, when the police charges come to an end, as they do with this present year, and when the public buildings are completed—and Sir James Craig has consented to considerable savings in the case of some of these buildings—the contribution which Ulster will pay to the Imperial Parliament, even after the provisions of this Bill have come into effect, will be considerably in excess of what it has been during the last few years. So it is not a question either of Ulster coming to this House for special assistance or for a Grant-in-Aid. It is a question rather of what rebate this House should allow from the contribution which is to be made by Ulster towards the upkeep of the Imperial services of the Crown.
These two general observations I think necessary for a proper understanding of the comparatively limited issue which is
before the House. As a consequence of the 1920 Act, a separation took place between the British Unemployment Insurance Fund and the similar fund of Ulster. The whole principle of unemployment insurance rests upon largeness of area and variety of industry. It is only by spreading the risks over very great areas of population and over an extensive diversity of trades that the general contributions of the whole body of subscribers, by averaging the risks, are enabled to guard against seasonal and cyclical disturbances of industry. In this country, when two or three great trades are in a state of great depression, there are perhaps 20, 30, or even 40 trades doing quite well, and some very well, and those that are successful bear the weight of those that lag behind. But to try to set up a separate Unemployment Insurance Fund on the British scale for so small a unit, for so small a community, as that of Northern Ireland and for a community so curiously circumstanced in its industrial life, was from the very outset a hazardous and even a forlorn undertaking.
The population is only a million and a quarter and the insured population is only 261,000; that is to say, the ambit of Ulster's unemployment insurance fund is, approximately, one-fiftieth of the ambit of the British unemployment insurance fund. You are dealing with an organism one-fiftieth of the scale of that which has sustained the shocks and buffets of our present industrial position. But more important than size even is this question of variety. Whereas British industry presents an immense variety of trades the industry of Ulster consists to the extent of more than one-half—to the extent of 51 per cent.—of only two trades, shipbuilding and linen. These two trades, together, comprised 51 per cent. of the whole of the insured population of Northern Ireland. In these circumstances, it was obvious, or should have been obvious, from 1920 onwards that the only chance for surviving and solvency on an independent basis of the Northern Ireland Insurance Fund was a succession of exceptionally good years in which reserves could be accumulated and the fund placed in a very strong position. But instead of having a succession of exceptionally good years we have, as everyone knows, had
exactly the opposite. Both the main industries of Ulster have been smitten simultaneously.
The comparative figures for the last three years show that, whereas in Great Britain the average unemployment has been between 10 and 11 per cent., in Ulster it has been nearly 20 per cent., and in this present financial year, whereas our unemployment is running at a little over a rate of 10 per cent., in Ulster it is running at a rate of 25 per cent. Ulster, therefore, has an unemployment rate at the present time 2½ times as great as this country. We know what it is to live through years with unemployment running at the rates which have prevailed in this country. Conceive what must be the position in this small country dependent upon these two main industries with a rate of unemployment which carried over the whole insurable range is represented by the figure of 25 per cent.! I have the details of the figures of these trades, which, of course, have been far beyond 25 per cent. On 25th January, this year, there were 38 per cent. unemployed in shipbuilding in Ulster, and 29 per cent. in linen; to go back to June, there were 31 per cent. in shipbuilding and 42 per cent. in linen; to go back to June, 1924, there were 38 per cent. in shipbuilding and 10 per cent. in linen, and to go back to 1922 there were 29 per cent. in shipbuilding and 31 per cent. in linen.
These are really very painful and harassing figures. That this community should have had to face all these industrial difficulties at the same time that it has had great internal political strife and many disturbances on its borders and has had to build up the organisation of a new Government—I think the concentration of all these difficulties really constitutes one of the most trying ordeals through which any body of British subjects have been called in recent years to pass. With two and a half times the rate of unemployment prevailing in Great Britain and with no prosperous trades to lean on, it was clear that the Ulster fund would pass rapidly into deficiency which could only be met by borrowings by the Ulster Exchequer. The deficiency has already amounted to £3,500,000, and this year it would, apart from the assistance which we shall give by this
Measure, amount to over £2,000,000 m a single year. Consider what are the equivalents of those figures translated into British figures. The £3,500,000 deficiency of Ulster, if operated over the area of the great British Insurance Fund, would amount to £140,000,000, whereas in the present year we shall have gone into deficiency less than £800,000, and our total deficiency is less than £8,000,000.

Mr. BATEY: That is because you have been depriving people of benefit.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am referring to these figures for a purpose for which the hon. Gentleman will not quarrel with me, for the purpose of showing what a very much heavier burden is the deficiency of the Ulster Insurance Fund from any which, however matters may be conducted here, we have been called upon to bear ourselves. A new deficiency this year of £2,000,000 would be the equivalent of an £80,000,000 deficiency on our insurance fund.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What guarantee is there that you will not get another deficiency next year?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no guarantee at all.

Mr. WALLHEAD: There is no control at all.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is a great difference between guarantee and control. It will be said, "Why should not Ulster reduce the benefits?" I do not know if any critics on the opposite side of the Committee are going to use that argument to-day. It will be said that Southern Ireland has been content to accept a lower standard of social service than exists in Great Britain. In education, in pensions, in unemployment insurance, they accepted a definitely lower standard, and why should not this smaller community recognise the fact that it cannot possibly afford to have its social services maintained at the level of this prosperous and wealthy community of Great Britain? There is a great difference, in my judgment, between the position of Ulster and the Irish Free State. The Irish Free State, it is true, have accepted a lower standard of social service, but they have been willing to pay that price in order to have the satisfac-
tion of political ideals and aspirations which they had long cherished. They have got what they wanted, and they obtained it with their eyes open. No such consolation is open to the people of Northern Ireland. They have to put up with an arrangement that they do not like at all. They had to upset all the plans on which they had long proceeded. They had to cut themselves off and set up housekeeping for themselves, and if, in addition to political disturbance, they were to be subjected to a marked diminution in the scale of their social services, it would be at once invidious and unfair.
But there is a much more practical reason than that for our not allowing a marked differentiation in the social services of Northern Ireland and of this country. Belfast is not so far away from Glasgow. Both are suffering. They have similar industries, they are closely linked, and communication between them is cheap and swift. Many people pass to and fro. I am informed that there are only 14,600 trade unionists in Ulster who are not members of the corresponding British trade unions. If the benefits, for instance, in Ulster were halved, as would probably be necessary to make the Fund entirely satisfactory and self-supporting at this moment, or if the contributions were doubled, which would have the same effect, that would make such a difference between the social conditions prevailing in these two harassed centres of working-class population that undoubtedly there would be an influx into Glasgow and the Clyde area, where already the conditions, we are not infrequently informed, are so bad that they could hardly be worse. Moreover, an attempt to differentiate between these smaller communities of British subjects in their social services would be inconsistent with the general effort to erect and maintain and improve upon minimum standards of life and labour to which the House of Commons for the last 20 years has sedulously devoted itself. Therefore, I do not expect that any suggestion from the Labour party will be made that Ulster should solve her difficulties by reducing benefits. Therefore, if it is not wise to reduce benefits, neither is it right to disinterest ourselves in the Ulster community. If you are not going to reduce benefits in some way or other, the Fund must be made capable of sustaining itself.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: What is the amount involved?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The White Paper shows clearly. The amount involved this year is £680,000. The amount next year cannot be estimated in advance. It depends on the relative conditions of employment in the two countries. But I will come to that in my remaining remarks. What shall we do? If we are not going to reduce benefits on the one hand, and if we are not going to allow bankruptcy to supervene on the other, what course is open to the House to pursue? As the Ulster Fund sank deeper and deeper into debt appeals, of course, were made to the Imperial Government by the Ministers of Northern Ireland, and originally these requests took the form of suggesting an amalgamation of the two funds, which it was said should never lave been separated. The Ulster Government said they were perfectly ready to have their fund administered as an Imperial service, under Imperial officers, entirely over their head and apart from any authority the Ulster Parliament might have, provided that the two funds could be merged, and the whole of these communities, whether situated in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, should have equal benefits. Primâ facie, there was a great deal to be said for this. I was much attracted to this idea, and it was on these lines that I first attempted to study the question, but after careful consideration it was felt that there would be great difficulty in a British Department administering as an Imperial service a fund of this character in Northern Ireland.
I think the incentive to economy would not be present in the minds of the population by that method. At any rate it is quite clear that there would be a certain discordance between the work done by the Imperial officials in scrutinising claims for benefit and the general sentiment of a population suffering, as this population is suffering, from perfectly appalling unemployment, and it seems possible that very bitter disputes might arise between unemployed persons and the Imperial officials and that there would not be that bulwark of local responsibility such as is afforded when the Ulster Parliament itself stands in the breach and faces the difficulties that arise in regard to unemployment in its area. We studied this for many weeks in a Cabinet Com-
mittee—we also set up a very expert Departmental Committee under a distinguished civil servant who had experience both of the Treasury and of Irish affairs. As the result of the labours of this Committee, somewhat modified after Cabinet consideration, the present Bill has emerged. I cannot myself attempt to improve upon the details and succinct account contained in the White Paper. I think it explains the somewhat complicated method of the Bill with a maximum economy of words. The principle can be expressed in a single word. It is the principle of reinsurance. 75 per cent. only of the relative deficiency of the British and the Ulster funds will be covered by reinsurance. The Exchequer which is responsible for the richer fund in any year will pay to the poorer fund.

Mr. BATEY: You will use the British fund to pay to the Irish?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I think the hon. Member was one of those who in a previous Parliament wanted us to hand enormous sums to the Russians? I certainly think our own fellow-countrymen, and British trade unionists, residing in Northern Ireland, have at least as good a claim upon our attentions as the Russians.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is that a fair way of describing the proposal? It is most unfair.

The CHAIRMAN: There are not at present the same political and social bonds of union between England and Russia as between England and Northern Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. My argument was of an a fortiori nature. The grant is limited to 75 per cent. of the relative deficiency and it is based on a population basis and not on the numbers of insured persons. Of course, this arrangement will be very favourable to Ulster in all probability, because the prosperity of our fund, with the many different trades on which it depends, will probably be greater in the majority of years than that of a fund which is so largely dependent on only two trades.

Mr. MOLES: Official statistics show that for a period of 20 years the Belfast area had the lowest ratio of unemployment in the three kingdoms.

Mr. HARDIE: Why did you not build up your fund?

Mr. MOLES: There was no fund.

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask hon. Members to keep silence and allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed.

Mr. CHURCHILL: It does not at all follow that prosperity may not come to the industries of Northern Ireland, and the very fact that it is so dependent upon two industries, if the wheel turns in favour of those industries, would make it a profitable contributor to the reinsurance fund instead of an unprofitable contributor. If, for instance, we were to plunge into a great coal strike this year which involved the stoppage of our industry for a very long period—

Mr. D. GRENFELL: There will be no coal strike. There may be a lock-out.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will call it a coal stoppage. I am told it is quite possible that a payment will fall due from Ulster.
Guarantees are given against laxity in administration. The Ulster Government welcome inspection and audit, and we intend to take full advantage of the offer because we must be absolutely certain that equally careful administration prevails on both sides of the Channel. The incentive on the Ulster Government to maintain a strict administration, by which I mean a proper administration, is perfectly clear, because they have to make up the other 25 per cent. deficiency, relative deficiency, when one is shown. For instance, in the present year when we are paying £680,000, the Ulster Government will have to pay £450,000 from their own resources, and £450,000 of their resources is equivalent on a revenue basis to something like a £40,000,000 charge upon the British Exchequer. Therefore, there is a very strong incentive, apart from inspection and audit, upon the local administration to administer the fund in a responsible and prudent manner.
It has been arranged that if, as the White Paper shows, our liability in any year exceeds £1,000,000, it shall be open to the Imperial Government to review the question and to legislate again, if they think fit, without any charge of breach of faith being made. The only question that would arise would be the hardship and the conditions prevailing on
both sides of the Channel. It seems to me that, in a difficult situation, we have made the best arrangement in our power. What of the future? We cannot judge what the future will be in regard to unemployment. If unemployment gets no better, if it gets worse, it is quite clear that either there will be a financial collapse of the Insurance Fund of Northern Ireland or there will have to be reduction of benefit, or there will have to be an amalgamation of the two funds. We have adopted none of these courses. The course we propose follows none of these lines. It takes a less drastic course altogether.
It is a heavy undertaking and one which I have been very reluctant to assume at the present time, but it is certainly much less than we should have had to pay out of British funds if the two funds had remained amalgamated, as they would have done had it not been that Ulster was induced and compelled by the Imperial Parliament to set up a separate establishment for herself. If, on the other hand—one may hope that it may be so—matters should improve and these industries should become more prosperous in Northern Ireland, there is no reason why, with these arrangements, we should not get through very satisfactorily. Whether we take a hopeful view or a pessimistic view, I am sure that in making this arrangement for re-insurance between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of unemployment insurance, the Committee will be doing no more than is their bounden duty.

Mr. BATEY: On a point of Order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that I was one of those Members of Parliament who wanted to give money to Russia. I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to prove that statement.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I only cast it out as a surmise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"]

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order. It is a matter of personal explanation.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

Mr. CHURCHILL: Certainly, if the hon. Member did not approve of the policy. [Interruption.]

Mr. STEPHEN: Withdraw like a gentleman. Try to be a gentleman for once.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member is a good judge of gentlemen. If the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) says that he did not approve of that policy, of course, I withdraw.

Mr. BATEY: That makes it worse.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw!

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order. There is only a matter of personal explanation involved. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO.']

Mr. CHURCHILL: I withdraw, on the assumption that the hon. Member for Spennymoor is right in saying that he did not approve of the policy.

Mr. BATEY: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: It is only a point of personal explanation.

Mr. WESTWOOD: It is a false accusation.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Spennymoor is not satisfied with what the right hon. Gentleman says, he will be able to say so in Debate. There is no question of Order that can arise.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I want to ask, in view of your statement, Mr. Hope, that the hon. Member for Spennymoor can raise this matter in Debate, whether we shall be in Order in raising the question of lending money to Russia, on this Debate which deals with Northern Ireland?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. The matter is purely a personal one between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Spennymoor.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It amounts to this that the right hon. Gentleman's method—

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Spennymoor is not satisfied—

Mr. BATEY: I am not.

The CHAIRMAN: Then he will have an opportunity of dealing with the matter in Debate.

Mr. BATEY: That will not satisfy me.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not wish to hurt the hon. Member's feelings. He interrupted me and asked, "Why give this money to the Irish?" I said, "The hon. Member is one of those in this House who wanted to give money to Russia." He says that that is not so. If it is not so, I withdraw.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in line 1, after the word "That," to insert the words
subject to certain modifications, including provision for the repayment of any sums paid.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer began his speech by saying that it was an unpleasant task to have to put before the House of Commons such a proposal as this. I cannot imagine that it would be an unpleasant task for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to propose at any time or in any way an increase of expenditure. The only thing he has done so far since he assumed office, and he has done it with remarkable success, has been to add to national expenditure in every possible direction. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman finding it an unpleasant task to have to place the facts of this proposal before the House of Commons. I congratulate him upon having made the best of a bad case. He has adopted precisely the method which he adopted a year ago in defending the outrageous grant to the Ulster Government for assistance to the Special Constabulary. On that occasion he made no attempt whatever to defend the proposal upon its merits. He made the same pathetic appeal that he has done to-day, about the hardship of Ulster and the pressure that was placed upon an unwilling Ulster to have its own Parliament and to manage its own affairs. That is the only ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman has defended the proposal this afternoon.
This is not a new proposal. It has been before every Chancellor of the Exchequer since 1922. It was put before the present Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he refused to touch it, if I may use a somewhat vulgar term, with a 40-foot pole. The Prime Minister's successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer was next approached. Indeed, Sir James Craig has hardly been off the door-mat of the Treasury for 24 hours during the last
four years, begging for money from the British Exchequer. The proposal came before the present Prime (Minister's successor, the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Health. He refused it; he would not have anything to do with it. Then I came into office as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The matter was never submitted to me directly by Sir James Craig, but he approached others, not only in regard to the grants for the Special Constabulary, but in regard to this matter. Next the right hon. Gentleman came into office and, apparently, the Ulster Government have found a more amenable subject for their pressure.
What does this proposal mean? I hope the Chairman will not rise and say that I am wandering from the subject, because there is a very intimate connection between the grant for the Special Constabularly and this grant.

Mr. CHURCHILL: indicated dissent.

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Everybody who has inside knowledge knows it to be a fact that the grant given under the name of the Special Constabulary was simply a camouflaged grant for unemployment in Northern Ireland. During the last three or four years they have had something like £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 under the so-called grant for the Ulster Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman would not dare, now that the differences between the two Governments in Ireland have been settled, to come to the House of Commons and ask far a continuation of the Special Constabulary Grant. What does he do? He accedes to what, at least, two of his Conservative predecessors in his office have refused to do. He comes to the House of Commons and asks us, to help the Ulster Government. Here I would say that I am sure every hon. Member on this side appreciates the difficulties of Ulster in regard to excessive unemployment, and if any proposal could be made for lightening their burden which, at the same time, would not be unjust to the taxpayers of this part of the United Kingdom, it would receive the support of every hon. Member who sits upon these benches. That is not what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.
The right hon. Gentleman is proposing to give a sheer gift to the Government of
Ulster. We have put on the Paper an Amendment. We are not opposing the scheme entirely, but we are asking that the assistance should be rendered in the form of a loan. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Moles)—whom I do not often see in his place; there must have been some special attraction which has brought him across the Irish Channel—made an interjection during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the purport of which was that for 20 years Belfast had had a lower percentage of unemployment than the rate of unemployment in corresponding occupations in this country. If that be so, we have some reason to hope that a time of prosperity may come to Belfast again, and that Belfast may have a lower percentage of unemployment than the corresponding industries in this country. If that happy time should come, the Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland, on its present basis, will become solvent, and not merely solvent, but profitable. Therefore, what reason can be brought forward or what argument advanced against the proposal that in those days, out of that surplus, the Government of Ulster should repay to the British Exchequer the assistance which it is now proposed to give to them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is £3,500,000 debt on this fund.

Mr. SNOWDEN: But they will gradually wipe off that, and a further surplus will be accumulated. This is not the first occasion since 1922 on which the Government of Ulster have come to the Imperial Exchequer for assistance. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the amount of the grant by the Ulster Government towards Imperial services, which was fixed in 1920—something like £7,000,000 a year. According to the right hon. Gentleman's statement, that has been successively reduced until it amounts now to about £3,000,000 a year. I did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to the sums that Ulster has actually contributed on account of these Imperial services. But I do remember that the right hon. Gentleman, speaking last December in the Debate on the Irish Boundary question, said that Ulster had made her contribution, but she had received grants from the Imperial Exchequer which left her practically balanced.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The actual fact is that it is £1,250,000 a year on the average of the last three or four years.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think I have the exact words used by the right hon. Gentleman in December:
It is quite true they are paying their contribution, but we have had to remit against that contribution in every year sums which have been nearly equal to the contribution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1925; col. 360; Vol. 189.]
I understand that the total contribution is £3,000,000 a year. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that they have made a net contribution of £1,250,000.

Mr. CHURCHILL: An average net contribution in the last three years or so of £1,250,000.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That must have been since last December, or the right hon. Gentleman's statement then would not have been applicable. If the total contribution is £3,000,000 and Ulster has made a net contribution of £1,250,000, what did the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that their contribution and the amount remitted were "nearly equal"? Now the right hon. Gentleman's statement is that Ulster is paying £1,250,000 a year.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Average.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Under this proposal Ulster is to get from the Imperial Exchequer about £800,000 a year during the next four years—£600,000 in the current financial year, and possibly £850,000 in the next four years. What becomes of the £1,250,000? That means that, after having deducted £800,000, Ulster's contribution to Imperial services during the next four years is to be about £400,000 a year.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not want to interrupt, but it is a pity to proceed on wrong figures. At the present time Ulster is receiving £1,200,000 in respect of Special Constabulary. About the same amount was received last year. That comes to an end. If the addition under this Bill is £800,000 and the diminution on the Constabulary is £1,200,000, there is an increase in the contribution of £400,000. In addition to that there are expenses on public buildings.

Mr. SNOWDEN: In addition to that sum there was something like £700,000 which the Ulster Government was responsible for, on account of equipment
and other things which had been sold to her by the Imperial Government, and the right hon. Gentleman, I understand, intends entirely to wipe out that debt. So that Ulster's contribution even under the construction which has just been placed upon the present financial relations by the right hon. Gentleman, will come to something less than £1,000,000 a year.

Mr. CHURCHILL: indicated dissent.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Oh, yes!

Mr. CHURCHILL: In future?

Mr. SNOWDEN: So long as we are making this contribution. There is a statement repeated more than once in the White Paper and the right hon. Gentleman made use of it on several occasions during his speech. He spoke of this as a reinsurance scheme. The way in which this is phrased in the White Paper is that, if there should be a reversal of the rates of unemployment, if unemployment should fall in Ulster and increase in this country, a situation might arise where Ulster would have to contribute to the unemployment fund of this country. Has the right hon. Gentleman any respect for the intelligence of the House of Commons? Surely that is one of the most impudent statements that was ever incorporated in a White Paper presented to the House of Commons? Is there any man outside a lunatic asylum who thinks that a state of things like that is going to arise in the next four or five years? It could have served no purpose whatever, except in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman to provide one argument in favour of a case which in every other respect is lamentably weak. There are two staple industries in Northern Ireland, and both of them are suffering from exceptional depression. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is the last of the bargains that has been made with the Ulster Government? Sir James Craig has stated in public speeches more than once since the settlement in regard to the Boundary, that he had a guarantee from the British Government that they were going to hold an inquiry, under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, into the linen trade of Ulster, and he made this statement in such a way as to convey the impression that he had a pledge from the British Government that protection would be given to the linen trade of Ulster.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No such undertaking has been made by the British Government, and I very much doubt whether Sir James Craig raised it in that way.

Mr. MOLES: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not wish to mislead the Committee or to cast an undue reflection on Sir James Craig. I can assure him that no such statement was made. What was said was that a requisition had been put forward for an inquiry, but there was no statement either that the request was going to be granted or that any commitments had been made.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I do not think that Sir James Craig used the word "guarantee." What I said was that Sir James Craig had stated that he had something like a promise from the Government. It is a pity I have not the exact words here.

Mr. D. D. REID: I read the speech of Sir James Craig. What he said was that he had asked the Prime Minister that, if a recommendation were made by a Committee that a duty, some tariff, should be imposed in favour of the linen trade, Parliament would be given time for the discussion of it. He said there would be. He did not suggest either that there was any promise that the matter would be passed through its first stage by the Board of Trade or that a Committee would be set up. It was only after a Committee was sanctioned that Parliamentary time would be afforded for discussion.

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is not exactly what Sir James Craig said, I am sure.

Mr. REID: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman exactly what I read in the newspaper.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The whole point of Sir James Craig's reference to that matter lies in this—that it was made at the time of the Boundary Settlement. I very much regret that I did not provide myself with the words of Sir James Craig, because I know that they were quite as definite as I am leading the Committee to believe. It was impossible to resist the interpretation that there was a connection. That is why I am asking the right hon. Gentleman. I asked him a moment or two ago whether this was the last of the bargains made with Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman did not reply.
Then I go on to ask a definite question. Was anything said at the time of the settlement by Sir James Craig to the right hon. Gentleman or within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman to any other Member of the Government, in regard to an inquiry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act into the linen trade of Ulster?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Sir James Craig spoke about the conditions prevailing in the linen trade and his strong desire that there should be an inquiry, but no undertaking of any sort was given, and, as a matter of fact, the Government do not think that a primâ facie case has been made out.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am delighted to draw that statement from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. MOLES: It shows how wrong you were before.

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman has confessed that at the time of the Boundary Settlement Sir James Craig raised this matter. I am perfectly satisfied now. We are asked by this Motion to make a grant which, at the minimum, will amount to £4,000,000 from the British Exchequer during the next four years. As I said before, we are not at all opposed to rendering assistance to Ulster, but we do not think that this is the form in which the help should be given. We would not oppose a loan to Ulster, and a loan which should remain in abeyance until the Unemployment Insurance Fund of Ulster had become sound once more. That is precisely what we are doing in this country. The Treasury is not giving money because of the unsound condition of the Unemployment Insurance Fund now. The Fund is borrowing from the Treasury. Why should we put Ulster in a more privileged position than the Insurance Fund in this country? That is the point of our objection to this proposal, and we shall vote against the Motion unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer is prepared to accept our Amendment. We shall oppose it on that ground, and on that ground alone. Ulster in years to come, without any financial burden, may be able to repay the money if it be given to her as a loan. If we cannot get that concession from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we shall oppose the Motion this afternoon and at all further stages.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. D. D. REID: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his remarks with regard to the Special Constabulary. He made the same observations last year when the grant was under consideration, and I have never been able to understand how he connects the two subjects. Let me deal with the position which the right hon. Gentleman seems to take up in connection with this Unemployment Insurance Fund. I should like to call the attention of the Committee to what happened under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. Under that Act the great yielding taxes—Income Tax, Supertax, Customs and Excise—are all collected by the Imperial Government. The taxes handed over to the Government of Northern Ireland are comparatively small. In fact, eight-ninths of the total revenue of Northern Ireland is collected by the Imperial Government, and in order to carry on the government of Northern Ireland allocations are made from this revenue for the various services. At that time there were no separate statistics available relating to Northern Ireland, and the amounts allocated were necessarily estimates. They were not trustworthy. Unemployment Insurance under the Act of 1920 was a comparatively small thing, but another Act was passed which immensely increased the scope of unemployment insurance.
Under the first Act only about 4,500,000 people in the United Kingdom were affected, but under the later Act the number was greatly increased. The two Acts were passed in the same year, and there was absolutely no figures from which any estimate could be made as to the future cost of unemployment insurance. Later on, when the Committee was set up for the purpose of adjusting various matters as to the Imperial contribution and deciding the basis upon which it was to be made, this question of unemployment insurance was excluded from its purview, and the question on what basis unemployment insurance should be financed is one that has never been considered at all. We contend that it is a perfectly reasonable request now, as the matter has been running for some years; and especially as it is a question on which a decision has never been taken. The right hon. Gentleman opposite will no doubt agree that it is useless having a fund which is not actuarily sound, and
all the evidence we have goes to show that the population which will be insured in Northern Ireland is not sufficient in numbers to afford a sufficient scope for a thoroughly sound scheme.
In all the circumstances we think we are entitled to call attention to the position of trade in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland, for industrial purposes, is really a part of the United Kingdom. It is part of the United Kingdom politically to some extent, but industrially it is, in fact, part of the United Kingdom. A great proportion of the trade of Ulster is foreign trade, and as all matters dealing with foreign trade are retained by the Imperial Parliament, the Government of Northern Ireland, if ever it desired to improve its trade by imposing tariffs, has no power to do so. Again, the workers in Northern Ireland are members of trade unions, the same trade unions to which people engaged in similar trades in Great Britain belong; and to cut off Northern Ireland for unemployment insurance purposes is, in our opinion, a very arbitrary operation. The number of insured persons in Northern Ireland is little more than half the number of insured persons in the Clyde and Glasgow district, and I am sure that no hon. Member opposite would contend that in the future the Clyde district must be a separate area for insurance purposes and must rely entirely on its own resources.
When unemployment insurance was transferred to the Government of Northern Ireland, unemployment was not so bad as it is now, but there is a large deficit at the moment. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman opposite quite realises the position. He contends that that deficit may be paid off; but in that case there will be no accumulation of reserve funds available for future periods of bad trade. The right hon. Gentleman talked about a contribution from Northern Ireland in certain circumstances, and I am sure the Government of Northern Ireland will be only too pleased to cooperate should such circumstances arise. I would ask hon. Members opposite to remember that these contributions are being made to men engaged in the same industries as themselves; to men who are members of the same trade unions to which they themselves and men in this country belong; to men who are suffering the same distress as they are suffering
because of unemployment. The people in Northern Ireland are not asking to be placed in any better position than other people. They are simply asking that the contributions should be so adjusted that this Unemployment Insurance Fund can be placed in a condition of reasonable solvency.
It has been said more than once that Northern Ireland is coming constantly to this country for grants. May I point out that Ulster does not get a penny of taxation raised in this country. Every penny that is going to be devoted to this purpose is derived from taxation raised in Northern Ireland. It is only a question as to how much you are going to take for Imperial purposes. The people of Ulster consider that they are entitled to ask for the same social services that people in Great Britain enjoy. They do not ask for any preferential treatment or any special advantage. All they ask is that working men and women in Northern Ireland, who come under the Unemployment Insurance Fund, shall enjoy exactly the same rights and privileges as people similarly situated in this country. We are not asking that a single penny of taxation raised in Great Britain shall be paid to Northern Ireland, we are only asking that part of the taxation collected under the authority of this Parliament in Northern Ireland shall be devoted to Northern Ireland services and to keeping our people on exactly the same plane as people in this country. That is a reasonable request and I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the Committee agrees with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Down (Mr. D. Reid), it would mean that no requests put forward from Ulster would be devoid of the argument that taxation now raised in this country can be well devoted to the purposes of Northern Ireland on any account whatever, and for any services whatever. I am sure that even the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is hardly likely to give way to that kind of pressure and to be persuaded by that kind of argument.

Mr. D. REID: All I said was that we should have the same services as are given in this country. I only ask that our social services should be kept on the same plane.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that that is what the hon. Member meant, but we have in our minds what happened in the case of the Special Constabulary Grant last year. It may happen again. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think me discourteous if I say that the fact of this demand, having been refused by two of his Conservative predecessors and granted by himself appears to give a much more political complexion to it. The power of the right hon. Gentleman to resist requests made from Ulster are less than those of his predecessors.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not know on what authority the right hon. Gentleman makes his statement, and I do not know how the right hon. Gentleman can be in the position to make the statement. It can only have arisen from a study of secret papers. But the situation is entirely different now. The deficit three years ago was small, but it has grown and grown, and this is the worst year they have ever had in Ulster. Consequently the deficiency is now a very large figure.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The right hon. Gentleman asks me on what authority I made the statement. My authority is the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, but whether the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer gets his information from the sources indicated by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer I do not know. I have seen no secret papers myself, but I do know that it has been rumoured that requests made by the Government of Northern Ireland in the past have been refused by previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. This request is now being granted by the right hon. Gentleman.
On what grounds does the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuse to accept the Amendment? He has given us no good reason for supposing that the House is carefully safeguarding the money of the British taxpayer in making a full grant and a final grant for this purpose without any conditions as to repayment. The conditions which are applied to the Unemployment Fund in this country ought equally to apply—if there is to be a parity between the two parts of the United Kingdom—to the Fund in Northern Ireland. I hope the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, if he replies, will address himself to this point. How
can he justify making a grant to Northern Ireland, when the making up of any deficiency in this country would certainly be on a loan basis? The case made by the right hon. Gentleman is that the two principal industries are suffering from abnormal trade depression. We all know that is unfortunately the case, and I am sure everybody sympathises with the people of Belfast in particular, who are suffering now from a slackness in trade which I believe has not been known within the lifetime of anybody. But what is happening in the shipbuilding industry in Belfast is not unique in the United Kingdom. Exactly the same conditions, and in a worse degree, are to be found in many districts of this country. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to take the trouble to get out the figures for the Tees, the Tyne, the Wear or some parts of the Clyde he would find the proportion of unemployment actually greater in those areas than in Belfast.

Mr. CHURCHILL: They are on the general fund.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That is quite true, but there is no special plea put forward here on the ground of particularly bad unemployment.

Mr. MOLES: They are on the general fund, and we are not.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member is now under a separate Government or partially under a separate Government, but that argument carries one right away back to the question of the constitutional arrangements which were made with Ulster, and we cannot go into that question. What we have a right to complain of is, that these arrangements having been made and a separate Government having been set up, demands are being made upon us and are being met by us with a generosity which is unfair to the British taxpayer. That is the ground on which we think that this payment, if is to be made at all, should not be made in the form of a grant, but in the form of a loan as provided for in the Amendment, which we shall support in the Lobby.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he undertook to move this Resolution must have had some
bad moments, and they must have led him to give the Committee the surprising argument that Ulster deserved special consideration because it was not the fault of Ulster that this situation had arisen in Ireland to-day. He asked the Committee to consider that Ulster was separated from the rest of Ireland under a scheme of which it had never approved, and that, therefore, the British House of Commons ought to treat Ulster with special leniency. No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that all through our relations with Ireland have not been improved by the action of Ulster, and that the action of Ulster throughout has been such as to make the whole situation infinitely worse. I recollect when the right hon. Gentleman was proposing from that bench to coerce Ulster into accepting a reasonable settlement of the Irish difficulty, and I remember when his present sub-deputy assistant took a strong and even a vigorous opposition to that line, speaking for the Ulster people who objected to coercion. Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to be the last man to come here and ask that special financial consideration should be given to that branch of the Irish people who made a settlement of the Irish problem impracticable at that time.

Mr. CHURCHILL: They have made it practicable now.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman thinks that now, because they have made practicable an extremely bad solution, because they have become good boys, they must be rewarded. I thought that argument was extremely poor, but the other arguments in favour of this contribution by the British taxpayer would have been much sounder had the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment that the contribution should be a loan and not a grant. Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman meet that proposition? Why is it that we are to treat the unsound financial position of the unemployment insurance scheme in Northern Ireland, in a way entirely different to the way in which the Government meets similar deficiencies in this country? The right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to meet that question.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If you were to amalgamate these funds, this arrangement, of course, would operate by loan,
but that would be much more favourable to Ulster than the arrangement which we are making under this Resolution which only extends to 75 per cent.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. The assistance given by the British taxpayer to the Unemployment Fund in this country, given year after year, is in the shape of a loan. We are now giving assistance to a fund which is exactly similar in Northern Ireland, and why should we do it by means of a grant?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The assistance given in this country is not all in the shape of a loan. It is quite true there are credit facilities, but the main assistance is a grant which, in the present year, is over £12,000,000 per annum to the fund from the Exchequer.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The grant which the British taxpayer is making to this fund in Ireland is by way of a free grant, and I draw attention to that fact specially, not because the right hon. Gentleman has failed to give any reasons for making this a grant instead of a loan, but because, in the case of a loan, we might have some control over it. In this country the fund is administered here and is subject to the control of the Executive. The people who find the money control the expenditure, but you are now making a grant to the Northern Ireland Government and divorcing the expenditure of the British taxpayers' money from any control whatever by the British taxpayer. The control and administration of the money is in the hands of Northern Ireland and the funds are to be found to keep the scheme water-tight, or to keep it passably sound, by the British taxpayer without any adequate control being secured to him. There is an additional reason why this contribution should take the form of a loan.
There would not be the same opposition from these benches if we felt that there was to be any end to these demands which come alternately from Northern and from Southern Ireland. It goes on year after year, concession after concession, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be more susceptible to these demands than any of his predecessors. We cannot carry on the British Empire if the Chancellor of the Exchequer insists on conducting finance
as a matter of gestures of amenity instead of on lines of sound budgeting. Italy, France, Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland have only to come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he says: "The more money the British taxpayer pays up for you, the higher will be his standing hereafter in the history of the world as a generous contributor." And away goes the cash! This is merely another example. I am glad this Debate has elicited the fact that we are not going to have a protective tariff on linens as a fresh subvention from the British consumer to the Northern Irish manufacturers, but we have no assurance that this is the last demand from Northern Ireland to be capped hereafter probably by a similar demand from Southern Ireland. The real difficulty of our relations with both these Dominions under the Crown is that you have a permanent grievance suffered alternately by North and South, used as a lever to extract specially favourable consideration from the taxpayer of this country. Some time it will have to be stopped, otherwise the British Empire will be bled white, and I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an effort here to-day to put this special and additional subvention into the form of a loan upon which we may hope to recover something in the years to come.
There are numbers of people who will say that the payment of this money by the British taxpayer is in order to keep up the rates of benefit paid to the unemployed workers in the North of Ireland, and that we should prefer to keep these rates up even at the expense of the British taxpayer. If that were the only question, I think we should have more sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in acceding to this appeal from Ulster, but, as I see it, those are not the alternatives before us. The alternatives before us are, whether the manufacturers and the well-to-do people in Northern Ireland should find this money or whether it should be found by the taxpayers of Great Britain. Unemployment insurance in Northern Ireland materially assists the ratepayers of Northern Ireland. If that scheme were not in force, the money which it finds for unemployment benefit would have to come from the pockets of the ratepayers of Belfast and of Ulster generally. We are relieving them of that burden. The allow-
ances made under the insurance scheme are so low to-day that a man cannot keep body and soul together, for himself and his family, on less. That money would have to be found for the unemployed in Ulster somehow if this scheme were not in operation. It would be found by the Poor Law; it would come out of the pockets of the ratepayers, and therefore, in effect, we are relieving the ratepayers of Belfast and Ulster at the expense of the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that in Northern Ireland employers and workmen pay the same contributions as they do in this country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am not arguing that point at all. I am arguing that if there was no insurance against unemployment in Northern Ireland, the whole of this burden would be borne by the ratepayers. Therefore if the scheme came to an end, as it would come to an end if financially unsound, the burden would be upon Northern Ireland and not upon the taxpayers of this country. Therefore we are asking that this contribution should be raised from the people who are prosperous, that the middle men, the bankers and the merchants should bear this contribution, instead of putting it on to the people of this country to make financially sound a scheme, but for which the ratepayers' burden in Northern Ireland would be much heavier than it is to-day.

Captain CRAIG: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken and, I have no doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer also, would like a guarantee or promise from Ulster Members that there would be no more claims for assistance from Great Britain in the future. I am sorry we cannot give him that promise because we cannot look into the future, but I submit that such claims as we have made during the last four years, since the Northern Irish Government was set up, have been of a comparatively inconsiderable nature. If I had the time, I could prove that 70 or 80 per cent. of these claims and of the Government assistance which has been given to Northern Ireland, has been due to the faults—if I may use that expression—of Great Britain rather than those of Northern Ireland,
and it was only right that Great Britain should have made the grants which she has made. The position is that Northern Ireland cannot go on bearing the immense burden which has been placed upon her shoulders through a series of facts and circumstances over which she has had no control. The contribution which we have to pay, owing to the abnormal unemployment in Northern Ireland is so great that we cannot continue to bear that burden. We hope that hon. Members of this House, when they take into consideration the circumstances of the case and the facts connected with the allocation labour matters and unemployment insurance questions to us by the Act of 1920, will come to our assistance. We do not like coming here and asking for money—hon. Members may be perfectly sure of that—and we would be very much happier if, year by year, we could come to this country with a larger contribution than we are unfortunately able to do, but let me point out that we do at least give you a contribution for Imperial services, a thing which—I do not say it in any hostile spirit, but it is a fact—the Irish Free State has not done since it has been set up. That is at least something in our favour. If we could make the contribution greater, as I hope we will be able to do when prosperity returns to us, we would willingly and gladly do it.
The points on which we place the greatest stress in asking you to give us this assistance are, first of all, that when we had to decide in 1920 whether or not we would take over the burden of unemployment insurance, we had neither the experience nor the figures to realise what our position would be. The Insurance Act, 1920, I think, had only just been passed before the Act of 1920 which set up our Northern Irish Government. That Act increased the number of insured persons from somewhere in the neighbourhood of 4,000,000 to practically 12,000,000, and it must be obvious to everybody that we had had no experience nor opportunity of realising how that immense increase of insured persons would affect the scheme in Northern Ireland. Both these Acts were passed, as the Committee will remember, at a time when the country was enjoying great prosperity, but, immediately after that, the slump in trade came, and we found ourselves faced sud-
denly with a huge mass of unemployed persons to deal with. Owing to the nature of our trade—and, unfortunately, we cannot do what an hon. Member opposite suggested, namely, set up new trades to supply the necessary insurance funds to carry on the trades which are unsuccessful—we found ourselves with our two staple industries affected to a greater extent by unemployment than was the case in any part of the United Kingdom. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Well, I admit that shipbuilding Is equally hard hit in England as in Ireland, and possibly harder, but that does not alter the fact that England has dozens of other trades to make up for it, whereas we have only two staple trades, and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the Committee, the people in those trades represent over 50 per cent. of our insured persons.
The figures in the White Paper show how much more seriously we have been suffering from unemployment in Ireland than has this country. I would like to point out, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), that he must know very well that if the area in which he is interested, namely, the Tyne and the North-East coast, were in the position in which we are, it would be crying out, and properly crying out, for the same assistance as we are seeking now, and the same remark applies to the Clyde, which is perhaps the best example of all. I do not know whether it is an impossible suggestion, but when the original Unemployment Insurance Act was passed, if it had been suggested that the country should be organised in areas instead of as a whole, such districts as that in which the right hon. Member for West Swansea is interested, and the Clyde district, would have been in as bad a position as we are in to-day, and if, in those circumstances, they had come to this House and pointed out the fact that their district was composed largely of one industry which had been more hardly hit than the majority of industries, I have not the least doubt that the House would have come to their assistance in the same way as we are asking them to come to ours.

Mr. BROMLEY: It is not doing it now.

Captain CRAIG: The reason is that they are assisted out of their troubles by industries in other parts of the country,
such as Manchester, Bristol and the South of England, which are flourishing, but we have no such industries in the North of Ireland, and, therefore, we are in a serious position. I am sure the Committee realises that we have a genuine case of hardship. When the Act of 1920 was passed, it was for some time doubtful whether this question of unemployment insurance would be kept as a reserved service. I have no doubt that, had we had the faintest foreknowledge of the condition of affairs which has existed from that time till now, we would have asked the House—and the House, I am sure, would have consented—to have left that matter a reserved service. Had that been done, this question would never have arisen, but by reason of the fact that, rightly or wrongly, unemployment insurance was handed over to us, we are in the position which I have tried to describe. As I say, we do not like having to come to this House for money, though hon. Members opposite appear to think that that is our chiefest amusement. It is nothing of the sort. We do not like it, and we would like, if we could, to come to this country with a greater contribution every year, but I ask the Committee, in the unfortunate circumstances in which we find ourselves in the North of Ireland, to let us have this money.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The right hon. Member for Antrim (Captain Craig) has asked the Committee to view sympathetically the position of Northern Ireland in this matter, and I should like to say to him that this Committee does view the position of Northern Ireland sympathetically. That is true not only of Members sitting on his own benches, but of Members sitting on these benches and, as far as I know, of Members on the benches below the Gangway. The only difference between us is this, that whereas the right hon. Member for Antrim seems to think the sympathy should take the form of a grant, we, on these benches, think it should take the form of a loan. It seems to me that there has been a good deal of confusion introduced into this question by a misunderstanding of the nature of the whole scheme of unemployment insurance, and perhaps I may be permitted to set out what the scheme of insurance is. In the first place, the scheme itself provides for contributions
from three parties, namely, the employer, the workman, and the State. In an interjection just recently, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the State funds were making a grant of £12,000,000 to the unemployment scheme. I look upon that as a misuse of words. There is no grant given by the Exchequer to the unemployment scheme in England, but there is the State contribution, according to the Act which originated the scheme.
The fund, which is composed of those three parts, has to meet certain benefits, and since it has been created, that fund, owing to the exceptional amount of unemployment, has been in deficit. We were told this afternoon that that deficit, so far as this country is concerned, at the present time amounted to something like £7,000,000. How has that £7,000,000 been found? It has not been found by a grant from the Exchequer to the fund, but by a loan from the Exchequer to the fund, and a loan on which it is paid interest to the amount of 3 per cent. Now we come to the Irish fund, which also has contributions from the employer, the workman and the State, and in addition to that there is a deficit. I have not heard it carefully explained to the Committee, and I am not myself informed on the point, as to the form in which that deficit has been paid, and I should like to know from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the deficit of Northern Ireland is paid by the State to its fund in the form of a grant or in the form of a loan. If it is in the form of a loan, at a certain rate of interest, it seems to me that the procedure which we are asked in the White Paper to adopt will amount to something out of which the Irish Exchequer will actually make a profit, because it is suggested that we should pay out of the British Exchequer to the Irish Exchequer three-quarters of the equalisation fund, which is to become part of the money to be paid by the Irish Exchequer to the Irish fund to make up the deficit. If at the present time the Irish Exchequer is charging interest to the Irish fund on the amount of money that it has to pay, and we proceed to give a part of that from the British Exchequer, the Irish Exchequer will actually make a profit out of its contribution to the Irish fund, but, if on the other hand, the Irish Exchequer is pro-
ceeding on a different line from that pursued by the British Exchequer, and is giving a grant to the fund, I want to know why it is taking that line instead of pursuing the policy which we adopt in this country.
I want to put this further question: I see it is said in the White Paper—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer elaborated the point—that this was not a one-sided arrangement, because the time might come when it would work the other way, and in that case the Irish Exchequer would be paying sums to the British Exchequer on account of the money that we had to find for our deficit. The word "grant" is used in referring to these sums, but, as a matter of fact, the British Exchequer does not make a grant on account of the deficit, but a loan, and I am not at all clear that the wording which we find in the White Paper would cover that case. If the British Exchequer continues to pay money to the deficit by way of a loan, would that entitle the British Exchequer to obtain money from the Irish Exchequer in order to make up part of the balance? I should be rather surprised if it would, and, therefore, it seems to me that what we should have to do in order to get the money from the Irish Exchequer at all would be to pay part of the deficit in the form of a grant and the other part in the form of a loan. I submit that is not a satisfactory way of meeting the situation. The point seems to me to come to this. We in this country are satisfied that, in the long run, our unemployment scheme will be solvent. We are content that the British Exchequer should loan money to the fund, in the belief that the fund is actuarily solvent, and in the end will be in a position to repay the money lent.
Now we come to the Irish fund. I can perfectly well understand that in Ireland the uncertainty in each particular year is very much greater than in this country, but I do not see that that is a reason why, in the long run, the fund should be any more actuarily insolvent than in this country. In fact, as an hon. Member told us, for a considerable number of years preceding the War the two principal trades had been particularly flourishing, and that, therefore, there would have been a very large amount of credit in the fund. If that be true—and I have not the smallest reason for doubting it—is it not exceed-
ingly likely that, in years to come, this fund will be solvent and prosperous again, and that the money which they will be able to provide will be sufficient to repay the deficit in the fund, just as it is in this country? It may be that in exceptional years the call upon the fund for the time being may be very much greater, but I see no reason why the Irish Exchequer should not behave to the Irish fund exactly in the same way as our Exchequer behaves to our fund. I see no reason why they should not make a loan on behalf of the deficit, and, if so, why the assistance which we render to them should not also take the form of a loan. If that were done, we on this side are fully prepared to run the risk involved, because we recognise the exceptional circumstances in which Northern Ireland is placed at the present time.
But for this arrangement in the White Paper we have not got the same feeling. In the first place, we have an uncomfortable feeling that it is going to be "heads we lose" when it is one way, and "tails we shall not win" when the tables are turned, and it certainly does seem to me that, in the wording of these Clauses, it is very doubtful whether we should not have to change our method of making up the deficit to become eligible for the contribution to the Irish Exchequer. That may be a misreading of these Clauses, but I think anyone who has attempted to make out precisely what these Clauses do mean, will share my difficulty in attemptting fully to understand and appreciate their effect. I ask this Committee, therefore, to support the Amendment put forward from these benches, because it seems to me the only equitable way of meeting the situation. It is perfectly fair to Northern Ireland. It entirely meets the case put up by the right hon. Member for Antrim that they were in exceptional difficulties at the present time. But it meets it in a way which is fair also to this country, because when Northern Ireland again is prosperous, and has met the deficit in its own fund, it will then be in a position to repay this country the exceptional contribution it has given in a time of stress.

Mr. MOLES: I think I can relieve the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He is haunted by the fear that if the arrangement proposed in this Money Resolution be carried through, the Government of Northern Ireland will be
making a profit. The position is—and I think it is obvious—that the moment you reach a stats in which you have to pay up £53,000 a week, and you take from the State, the employer and the employée only £18,000, the balance has got to be made up by borrowing, and the Northern Government had to borrow to meet the deficit. I must make acknowledgment of the good feeling, upon the whole, with which this Debate has been conducted. We have grown a good deal accustomed to a certain measure of bitterness and occasional abuse from certain parties in this House. You are all very candid in telling us our faults. The one thing we could not stand from you would be flattery, as we would begin to suspect ourselves if you used it. The only purely personal note was struck by the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), who seemed rather to resent, I thought, my presence in this House at all. He went on to say that he seldom saw me in this place here. He might realise that I am getting on in years, and suffering the penalty, but I should have thought that, having regard to the rapid changes which take place upon his own Front Bench from week to week, it was a subject he should have avoided. However, it is one of those debating points that does nobody any harm. But he made one or two observation which, I think, on reflection he will regret. He made charges against Sir James Craig, who, I beg leave to tell him with great respect, has as high a sense of public honour and duty as he has. There are Members in this House who have served with him for twenty-five years, and I would challenge his greatest enemy in this House to get up and say he ever did a dishonourable act.

Mr. SNOWDEN: I certainly never suggested that Sir James Craig was not honourable. What I did say against him was that although I have a certain amount of admiration for him, his whole interest was in looking after Northern Ireland.

Mr. MOLES: I have no quarrel with that phrase, but let me remind the right hon. Gentleman what he did say. I took a note of it. He said:
The police grant of last year was used as camouflaged relief of unemployment.
The meaning of that is too obvious to be got rid of in that disingenuous fashion.
All I have to say is that there is not one word of truth in the suggestion, and I will prove it even to the right hon. Gentleman's satisfaction. The moment that the Boundary Commission and the subsequent proceedings were completed, what happened? Within fourteen days every single member of the Special Constabulary had received his notice of dismissal. Is that camouflaged unemployment? How does it square with the suggestion the right hon. Gentleman made? It was an unworthy suggestion, I tell him with great respect. Then he tells us that on all those benches we have sympathisers. It reminds me very much of that historic colloquy between the oyster and the walrus:
'I weep for you,' the walrus said,
'And deeply sympathise,'
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size.
I would much prefer the sympathy that takes the form of action, rather than the form of adulation which merely beslavers us with praise, and then does the maximum amount of mischief. When the Government of Northern Ireland was set up, you either meant to give it a fair chance to succeed or you did not. If you did not, the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and those who vote and speak with him is perfectly understandable. To be quite frank, I do not think he ever meant it to succeed. I well remember members of his party, when he was not in the House, giving a great deal of trouble and opposition when we sought to have a sound financial scheme put up. The whole scheme of the finance of the 1920 Bill was rotten from beginning to end. It started off with a tremendous fallacy. It took the peak year of 1918 when the revenue from Ireland was £42,000,000, or more than four times the pre-War revenue of all Ireland, and it assumed that was going to be the static condition, that the revenue would never fall below it, and that expenditure would never go over £24,000,000, and that, therefore, we in the North should pay £8,000,000 contribution a year. Why, the revenue in this country has fallen proportionately almost as much as it has with us, and all the Unemployment Relief Acts, and so on, were not contemplated when the scheme of finance in the settlement was set up. If you had
given us only the conditions which obtained when the Government of Ireland Bill was brought in in 1920, and nothing had been changed, we could have carried on. But you have changed every thing, and you ask us to believe and to go back to our countrymen who are members of your trade union—

Mr. BROMLEY: You stoned them out of the shipyards.

Mr. MOLES: I am not defending everything that took place any more than on the Clyde, and I think if my hon. Friend will listen to me, I know the facts a great deal better than he does. But if he wishes to discuss them I will discuss them with him.

The CHAIRMAN: Not here.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. MOLES: Certainly not, Sir; but we are asked to go back to these men who are members of his own trade union, engineers, boiler-makers, shipwrights, carpenters and joiners, bricklayers and all the rest of it, and to tell them this, "You are to go on being taxed by the Imperial Parliament and pay every tax that is imposed here—because you impose and collect 90 per cent. of all the taxation in Northern Ireland—but you are not to have the same social standards. You have to make contributions to England, Scotland and Wales for a higher social standard than you have in your own country." They expect us to put up a proposition like that to intelligent working men and women. Let me put this point. I happen to have here a return which I took from the Treasury figures. We are told that we come here for the British taxpayers' money. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no shadow of a shade of foundation for it. Of the £11,516,000 raised by taxation for the financial year, 1922–23, £10,562,000 was imposed by this Parliament, collected by your officials, and paid into your Treasury. I suppose the proposition is that we were expected to carry on the whole business of the Government of Northern Ireland for £954,000? We do not come here for anybody's money. We are here neither to cringe for your charity nor to bully for blackmail. We are here to ask you for a fair and reasonable share of our own money;
money that our taxpayers have paid into your Treasury. If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were in his place at this moment, I could show him that the figures which he gave as our contribution to the Imperial Exchequer were very much under-stated, and I could have shown him, too, that, after all allowance and deductions had been made for the outgoings from the British Treasury, the net result that remains is that nearly £10,000,000 have gone out of Northern Ireland altogether into the Imperial Exchequer, and not a brass farthing has come back to Ulster. That is the position. I defy even my right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) to dispute what I say. I have no doubt he knows these figures better than I do, for some of them are his own figures.
There is another point about the Special Constabulary that was made by the right hon. Gentleman. I wish he had gone further or not have mentioned the point, but I will deal with it. I want the Committee to remember this; that when the Government of Northern Ireland was set up, this Special Constabulary was a force in being, having been created by the authority of this Parliament. It was a first charge upon the British Exchequer up to the point when we took over. We had to take it over as a liability along with the other terrible heritage of terrorism and crime you bequeathed to us. [A laugh.] These things may be things for laughter to some hon. Members, but they were very great tragedies for us. I would remind hon. Members who sit in ease and comfort here that there were two Members of the group to which I belong who were assassinated in broad daylight.

Mr. BROMLEY: There were also a number of our labour union members, too!

Mr. MOLES: I do not desire to make a point of it, but I am entitled in fairness to say it. We had to take that over. We were responsible for law and order up and down the whole of that border which separates Northern and Southern Ireland. There had to be strong bodies of troops on both sides. Our territory was invaded. Part of it was occupied, and the British Army had to be sent there to shell the invaders
out of it. It is suggested in the face of all these circumstances that we should have disbanded the Special Constabulary. The price the British Government had to pay for its failure to administer law and order in Ireland was a terrible one. We had to restore law and order, and it required the continuance of that force to maintain it until the amicable agreement was made over the boundary question. Then came the moment for disbandment, and there and then the Special Constabulary was disbanded. I am glad to note that, whatever charges are levelled against us, that of extravagance or incompetence, has not been made this afternoon, because my right hon. Friend knows—it was done while he was at the Treasury, and I am glad that it was done; it may be done again, and we like it to be done again—your experts were sent over to go through every Department of Labour Administration in Northern Ireland to see where they could cut down expenditure or effect economies. They returned at the end of that exhaustive examination unable to recommend the reduction of a single-penny of expenditure, or to say where a single farthing of economy could be effected.
Another point—and it is a most interesting one—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealt with that so fully that possibly it would upon reflection be needless to repeat it. The Committee will recollect how fully, and I think how lucidly, he explained what was the difference between the assistance which our fund was getting and either a loan or a free gift; because it is neither. Five minutes' careful examination of the documents will show that that is so. It is a reciprocal arrangement. It works in this way. One of the two countries must always be in the position of being better or worse than the other. It is not likely that they will be exactly the same. Assistance is to be given by the country, or the Exchequer, in the better position to the one which for the time being is in the worse, and, if the conditions change, the contributions have to be made in the same way to the Exchequer from which assistance was formerly derived. That, in fact, is returnable, though it is not in the strict sense a loan. When my right hon. Friend says: "Why do you not come to us for a loan?" I point out we have
made contributions to the Imperial Exchequer far in excess of what we are getting. When he invites us to come for a loan, it is inviting us to come for a loan of our own money.

Mr. BROMLEY: That is what we are doing on this side!

Mr. MOLES: Oh, no; my hon. Friend is wrong. The Government of Ireland Act effected this among other changes. It set up two areas for the various purposes of the powers transferred. Hitherto we were part and parcel of the common fund, and, if no change had taken place in the conditions of Government, no question such as we are debating would have arisen at all, because we should have paid into the common fund and drawn upon it precisely as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does the hon. Member deny that the position of this country is this: If there is a deficit in the Unemployment Fund, that is made up by borrowing from our own Exchequer?

Mr. MOLES: That is perfectly true, but the hon. Member is missing the point. Suppose we had Home Rule all round, and suppose the West of Scotland were separated, and dealing with the terrific problem which centres round the Clyde. The condition on the Clyde is worse even than it is in Belfast. Then the West of Scotland would have had to come to the Treasury just as we do now, so that my hon. Friend will see his point is not a sound one. No claim could have greater merits than the claim made this afternoon. You laid upon us the responsibility for the government of the country. You asked us as a contribution to the settlement of this age-long question that we should put up with certain things, and we have brought peace to the country which you had torn with dissension. When we have done that, and saved a vast expenditure incurred year by year under various Acts, and when we come to you now in the peculiarly calamitous position in which we are placed, as a result of the aftermath of war, and when we say we have sacrificed much and have given up a great deal, I think you are entitled to give us release in these circumstances out of the moneys which we have paid into your Treasury.
I repeat again we are seeking not a sixpence of your money. We have paid
more into your Treasury than we are ever likely to get out. If this claim is to be denied, there is an end of all sense of justice in this House, and, if it is to be denied, above all from the Labour benches—for that is where the real opposition comes from—then let labour in Ulster know this: that the only enemies it has are the men who profess themselves to be its friends; that the only men who seek to do them mischief are the men their societies make returns to and help to keep in office. That is the position. There are some men there fighting the battle of Socialism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hea!"] What encouragement will your opposition this evening give them? Do you think the men of Belfast and Ulster, staunch Labour men as they are, are so stupid as not to see through this humbug and hypocrisy? They will judge you by your actions. It will not be by the frothy protestations of your friendship, or elaborated phrases of sympathy. They will judge by your actions. I have spoken with some plainness because we have had some plain speaking done to us. I hope no hon. Gentlemen will resent the fact that we feel we owe it to the people who have sent us here to make the best case we can for those who deserve well of the country.

Mr. DUNCAN: I have sat in this House for a good few years, and I have heard many hundreds of speeches from hon. Members from Belfast, but I do not think I ever heard a speech on similar lines to that to what the House has just listened. The only point between us, Captain FitzRoy, is this, that my hon. Friend on the opposite benches desires a gift, and we desire that they should be content with a loan. I do not know whether this is the kind of speech which goes down in Belfast, but I can assure my hon. Friend it is no use making speeches like that in this House, and especially to men sitting on these benches on the Labour side. This attitude is likely to do injury to hon. Members if they go to Belfast. I am going there. I would inform the hon. Member that I expect to receive just as kindly and friendly a welcome from those associated with him at present in Belfast as I have received in the past. I do not think that speeches of that kind help Belfast or Northern Ireland at all. The people of that part of the country are just the same kind of people as we in this country—
no better and no worse. We do know that there are very wide divergencies of opinion, but I am rather inclined to think that the speech of the hon. Member will not help to wipe out these differences, but rather seeks to accentuate them.
The hon. Gentleman did not understand, I feel sure, the attitude of my right hon. Friend. After all, we are not denying that there is a case. Some of us have been out of work. Perhaps hon. Members opposite have not. Perhaps some hon. Members do not know what it is to endeavour to keep a wife and home together on 10s. a week. Some of us have had to try it. Therefore, whatever his suggestions, whatever his sympathies with the people of Belfast, he can take it from me there is a good deal more real sympathy amongst those who have been associated with like conditions.
When I was lately in Belfast I had the privilege of having a conversation with the Labour Minister. He did not exhibit the same kind of feeling towards the English Members that my hon. Friend does. He appreciated the position. I told him that unemployment insurance was only one arm of insurance. There was such a thing as health insurance! If Northern Ireland desires us to take over the burden of the unemployment insurance, which is losing money, surely, as the son of a Scotsman, I should be expected to try to see whether we could not get a quid pro quo, and I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we might ask to take over health insurance as well, as that is not losing money. Surely, there would be no very serious injustice in that. However, now that we have the scheme, we realise that, as usual, it is the old country that has got to hold the dog. I suppose that has been the case for a great many years, but, after all, what we are dealing with here is insurance. Accordingly, I tell the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Belfast (Mr. Moles)—if he will be good enough to listen to me; I listened to his speech—that we are dealing with an insurance scheme. It is not a pawn shop, it is not a Jew's office to which we are to lend money.
During one period in the history of the insurance scheme in this country there was a deficit of £16,000,000, which has since been reduced to £7,000,000, proving
that the Fund is beginning to recover, as I have not the slightest doubt in my own mind that the insurance scheme in the North of Ireland will also recover. I know as a matter of fact that they have probably had less unemployment in the North of Ireland than in any of the industries in this country in years gone by. I know that because it is my business to know it, and I say there is not the slightest doubt that the unemployment insurance scheme in the North of Ireland will eventually recover its position. Therefore, it seems to me only reasonable that we should suggest that the same method as is employed in this country to put our insurance scheme straight when its funds are depleted, should be put into operation in the North of Ireland. We are robbing nobody. We are prepared to be generous with the North of Ireland in this matter. If they take the money from this country, surely it is not unreasonable to ask them to pay their debts.
Unfortunately, we have been very free in lending money to all sorts of people, and we do not seem to get it back. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he will find it difficult to prove that the members on these Benches are acting unreasonably towards the people of the North of Ireland in proposing to lend them this money to enable them to tide over this difficulty. I do not know that anybody on this side has even asked them to pay interest on the loan, and yet the British Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to pay interest on the money raised in order to make the unemployment fund balance in this country. The wonderful thing about our insurance system is that as long as a man remains in the country and as long as he is employed he pays. There are only two means of escaping—either to commit suicide or to get out of the country. The one thing that is inevitable in all these insurance schemes is that the people who work must pay. I believe the people in the North of Ireland are prepared to pay, and if the money was put into the form of a loan I do not think anybody in the North of Ireland would have the slightest possible reason to object to that method.
I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reconsider the position. So far as I have listened to this Debate, and I have missed only one or two speeches, there has as yet been no answer to the case put
from this side of the House—no answer at all. I think somebody ought to get up to try to show us how unreasonable and how unkind we are to the North of Ireland. Will any of the Members on the other side do that? I will sit here to listen to them if they will make the speech, but before a scheme of this kind is rushed through this House we ought to have some reply to the speeches from this side pointing out the unfairness of the suggestion that has been made. But before hon. Members make their speeches they ought to be careful what they say, because if the scheme we are suggesting for the North of Ireland is unfair; then the method that has operated in this country is equally unfair to the millions of working people who are doing their best to keep the scheme going. I shall listen with very great interest to anybody who will reply to the speeches from this side.

Sir MALCOLM MACNAGHTEN: I have listened to the whole of this Debate and I think the answer, for which the last speaker has asked has already been given, but I will try to give it again. The fact must not be lost sight of that the persons interested in an insurance scheme are the insured. It is the workmen who make their contributions to the fund, and who, in the event of unemployment, are to get benefit out of that Fund, who are the people primarily concerned. If the fund becomes insolvent, so that the benefit cannot be paid, it is the workmen who have subscribed who will suffer. Before 1920, before the separation, the workmen of Ulster had the security of the united fund of the United Kingdom. Following the separation they were deprived of that security, and were given only the security of the Ulster fund. Owing to the unfortunate fact that the two staple industries of Ulster have suffered exceptional unemployment in the last four years, the fund has gone steadily from bad to worse, and is now insolvent to the extent of £3,500,000. The people who will suffer unless something is done to remedy the situation are the unfortunate people who have made contributions in the hope of getting unemployment benefit. As I understand it, hon. Members opposite do not propose that the workmen should lose, they agree that
something has to be done for them. They agree, I presume, that one cannot get higher contributions from the employers or from the workmen. I can say for certain, speaking for my own constituency, that if the contributions from the employers were put up it would drive away the whole of the trade. The trade of Derry is carried on by firms who also have factories on this side of the water, and if we put any heavier burden on them they will simply close their factories in Derry.

Mr. SPENCER: Are you paying the same amount as the British now?

Sir M. MACNAGHTEN: Yes, that is the hardship of the situation. The Ulster Government are paying the same contribution as the British Government, the workmen are paying the same contribution, and the employers are paying the same contribution, and but for the separation that took place in 1920 they would have the security of the united fund. We would have no objection to the re-amalgamation of the Funds, but, the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to agree to that, and gave us this scheme instead. It is spoken of as though it were a favourable scheme to us. It is not favourable to us, but it does relieve the Fund from insolvency. May I point out, what has not been appreciated by all the speakers on the other side, that the object of the scheme is to put the workmen in Ulster in the same position as the workmen in Great Britain. It is to bring the two Funds into parity, to make the Funds of equal value, that the equalisation payment has to be made. To suppose that there could ever be a contribution from the Ulster Fund to the British Fund has been treated as an absurdity. It is said, "Here is a Fund already insolvent to the extent of £3,500,000; how can a situation ever arise under which it would contribute to the British Fund?" That criticism shows a misapprehension of the scheme. Next year the linen trade might recover its position. To show how great are the fluctuations in a trade like the linen trade, I may say that a few years ago the unemployment in the linen trade went down to 8 per cent. It was thought for a moment that the revival of the linen trade had come, and it did come for a short time. If that revival came again, and if there was a revival in shipbuilding,
the result would be that next year the Ulster Fund would be in a better position in that year. It would not be in a better position on the whole, but in that year it would be in a better position than the British Fund, and being in a better position in that year it would contribute to the British Fund, and not the British Fund contribute to it. It is a perfectly fair arrangement made for mutual insurance in order to secure parity between the two Funds as far as the workmen are concerned.
It is suggested that instead of having this scheme of grants from one Exchequer to the other, there should be a loan of money. If it is to be a loan with interest, and the Ulster Fund has got to borrow money at interest, it merely means that the Ulster Fund becomes more and more insolvent, and the Ulster workmen get less and less chance of recovering any benefits for his contributions. If it is to be a loan without interest, I am inclined to think it is a proposal which would be more onerous to the British Exchequer and more advantageous to us than is the scheme proposed. It would certainly be more onerous to the workmen, because it is the workmen who finally have to bear the burden of the deficit of the Fund. It has been said that this is a very generous scheme to Ulster, but in the end, when the division which is suggested in this scheme is made, it has to be made exactly in proportion to the population of the two countries, and according to our population we are going to bear the same proportion as is being borne by the people of this country. There is no doubt that the people of Ulster are much poorer, and are much less able to do this than the people of this country, but although that is the scheme, and although it is going to press very hardly on the people of Ulster, it will at any rate save them from insolvency, and it ensures to the contributors that they get the benefit they are entitled to under the fund, and as to which there would never have been any doubt whatever but for the separation of 1920.

Mr. WALLHEAD: With regard to what has been said on this proposal by hon. Members representing Ulster, I can assure them that our friends in Belfast will be able to form a right judgment upon this question without any assistance from them. I am sure that my
fellow Socialists in Belfast will quite understand the position which has been raised by this proposal. They have nothing to thank hon. Gentlemen opposite for, and they understand the motives which animate them. After all, it appears to me that under this proposal Ulster has become a sort of necessitous area. I would remind the Committee that we have plenty of necessitous areas in this country, but the great difference in the treatment of these areas in this country and in Ireland is that we get no help from the Exchequer, whereas Ulster can get the assistance they require from a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer.
It is a fact that from the point of view of Ulster she is temporarily a necessitous area under this fund, and I cannot understand why under those conditions the same kind of treatment should not be meted out there as would be meted out here under the conditions that obtain in some of our constituencies in this country. We have been fighting on these benches for the last 15 months for the poverty-stricken divisions which some of us represent in this House, where we have thousands of unemployed and thousands of men who for years and years have not drawn anything, and who have been driven to accepting Poor Law relief. Our local authorities have been smashed and broken in consequence, and they have to rate very heavily their own poverty-stricken ratepayers. I believe that Ulster can very well help herself out of this difficulty on the terms of the Amendment which we are proposing, mainly that this help shall be on the basis of a loan and not in the nature of a gift.
My particular point of view is that I think there should be no differentiation of treatment so far as these particular poverty-stricken areas are concerned. There should be no difference of treatment, although the percentage of unemployed in Ulster is higher than it is in this country, because there are men representing constituencies on these benches and below the Gangway who know by bitter experience that probably 50 per cent. of the males in their constituencies are unemployed, and poverty is stalking through those constituencies and yet we cannot get any help. The result is that the local authorities are being driven
deeper and deeper into debt and poverty, and when we appeal for help we do not get any. For these reasons, I shall oppose this proposal, while it is in the form of a gift.

Sir ROBERT LYNN: The hon. Member who has just sat down seems to be under the misapprehension that Ulster is contributing nothing towards the Imperial Exchequer. May I remind him that we are contributing towards Imperial expenditure exactly in the same way that Scotland is contributing, and during the last four years, in addition to paying our own expenditure at home, we have contributed no less than £18,000,000 towards Imperial expenditure here. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is for the Army."] Does the hon. Member object to having an army, because it is just as necessary to have an army for this country as it is anywhere else, and even the hon. Member's Moscow friends believe in an army.

Mr. WALLHEAD: You had better let Moscow alone.

Sir R. LYNN: I can quite understand my hon. Friend being rather touchy on that point. After all, we are only making a very reasonable request. This country has forced upon us a system of Government which we did not want, and I ask hon. Members if they want Ulster trade unionists to be put in a worse position than the trade unionists of this country? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] They then must either pay larger contributions and be granted smaller relief or else they will be in a worse position. One hon. Member asked why this money could not be raised as a loan, but I would point out that we have already done that. Altogether we have borrowed £3,600,000 already, and we are in a very unfortunate position, because two of our staple industries have been very bady hit indeed.
I would like to ask hon. Members opposite what would they think if Glasgow had been cut out in this way, and had been put in the position in which Belfast finds herself at the present time? I appeal to the Members of the Labour party to realise how reasonable is this proposal. Some hon. Members have resented the insinuation that there is political bias behind the opposition to this proposal, but can we be blamed if we say there is such bias? In December
last this House agreed to make a free gift of £200,000,000 or £300,000,000 to the Free State, and there was not a Member of the Socialist party opposite who raised any objection. I think we have a very good reason for putting forward this claim. The only new point I gathered from the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members opposite is that this vote has provided the Liberal party, or what was once the Liberal party, with at least one subject on which they agree. I do not worry about the Liberal party, because it has no influence, but in this matter, I appeal to the Labour party to be generous, and treat the trade unionists of Ulster as they would treat trade unionists in England or in Scotland.

Mr. SPENCER: I have listened to the speeches of hon. Members opposite with some degree of sympathy for the object which they have in view, but I quite fail to see the relevance of the argument which the hon. Member who has just sat down has used about Ulster's contribution of £18,000,000 to Imperial expenditure. Speaking for myself, I think that argument is totally irrelevant and has nothing whatever to do with the case we are considering. If hon. Members representing Ireland believe that they are part of the British Isles, and they still want an Army, then they must not object to making their contribution, which I know they gladly do. The one argument in regard to the matter we are discussing is the case of a loan as against a gift. What is the indebtedness of this country as against Northern Ireland? I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer can tell us if the indebtedness of England, Wales and Scotland in regard to this question is equal to the indebtedness of Northern Ireland. I think if we had this information hon. Members opposite would realise that they have no case whatever for a gift as against a loan.
I have sat through all the Debates in this House since 1921 when this question came up relatively to Great Britain, and I remember telling Dr. Macnamara when he was Minister of Labour that if he were to die there would be found written upon his heart the word "insolvency," because the only question he seemed to discuss was insolvency, and they were constantly asking for larger grants. Then it was merely a question of raising loans or lending money to the funds which had to
be paid back when trade revived. Why should Northern Ireland be put in a preferential position as against Great Britain on this question? The Ulster Members have no right to ask us for a grant as against a loan unless they can prove that their indebtedness at the present time is so great per capita that they cannot bear any further burden. That argument would strengthen their case, but that has not been proved, and if that is not a fact you have no right to come and ask for special treatment for Ulster. If you were in such a position of indebtedness that you could not bear any further burdens, or if you had before you a position in which you would have unduly to raise the contributions of the workers or lower their benefits, then I should support hon. Members opposite.

Sir R. LYNN: That is the case.

Mr. SPENCER: I do not think you have proved that case. All you are asking now is that a greater burden should be placed upon us in order to assist Northern Ireland, rather than that Northern Ireland at some future day, when she is more prosperous, should bear her own burdens. That is the position as I see it. If hon. Members could prove that they had borrowed until the country was in danger of the fund becoming totally insolvent, then the position would be different.

Mr. REID: May I draw the hon. Member's attention to the following passage which occurs in the memorandum issued by the Government explaining this financial Resolution?
The assistance required by the Northern Ireland Fund has, owing to the exceptional incidence of unemployment in Northern Ireland, been proportionately much larger than in this country, and the advances outstanding on the 30th September, 1925, amounted to £3,614,000 as compared with a figure of £7,935,000 in the case of the British Fund on the same date. On the basis of the insured population in the two countries the proportionate figure for Northern Ireland would be approximately £183,000 only.

Mr. SPENCER: Yes, I quite see, and from that point of view, undoubtedly, there is a great deal to be said for the case which has been put forward. But the hon. Gentleman who raised this point, and has given me this information, must remember that this sum of £7,000,000 is only about one-fourth of what it was in this country two years ago. We have
been constantly paying our debts during the last three years by increased contributions. We have had to raise our contributions, not only to pay the debt, but to maintain the present rate of benefit. I must confess that from that point of view there seems to me to be an element of reasonableness in what hon. Members representing Northern Ireland have to say, and, if it really be the case that if at the present time they were in the same position as this country in regard to the indebtedness of the fund, the amount outstanding would only be £183,000 instead of £3,600,000, that, to me, is evidence that Northern Ireland is in a very sorry position so far as this fund is concerned. It seems to me—I want to be reasonable to the men over there or anywhere else—that, if our indebtedness were something like that of Ireland, our indebtedness to-day would be £40,000,000 or £50,000,000.

Sir R. LYNN: £160,000,000.

Mr. SPENCER: I daresay it would be. I am not, however, considering that at all; I am considering the position of the men working in Northern Ireland, and, so fat as I can see, a case has been made out for some assistance being rendered to the workmen in Northern Ireland.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am afraid that the name of the workers of Northern Ireland has been dragged on to this political chessboard with the mischievous intention of creating a wrong position. This is not affecting the position of the workers of Northern Ireland, so far as one can see. The workers of Northern Ireland have paid their contributions, and are entitled to their benefit; it is their Government that is bound in honour as well as by law to give them that benefit, and whether the Government of Northern Ireland receives temporary assistance from this country in the shape of a loan or as a political bribe would not make the slightest difference to the position of the worker himself. The question is perfectly clear. This sum is to be granted to Northern Ireland as a price for the artificial boundary line which has been drawn in the middle of the country instead of the natural boundary on the outskirts of the country, and we are called upon to pay this sum of money, just as a few days ago we sacrificed a large sum to the Italian Fascists for political purposes.
This sum is not to be given for the benefit of the Irish workers. They are
entitled to their benefit from the Government to whom they have paid their contributions. We are asked to realise what would happen if the Government of Northern Ireland really went bankrupt and were not able to pay. What would happen is that the artificial, unnatural and unjustifiable Government of Northern Ireland would come into well-deserved discredit, and the workers of Northern Ireland would learn the absolute impossibility and unwisdom of being cut off from the rest of Ireland and from being part of one country with one revenue and one trade. When it is said that Northern Ireland is a country which has to depend upon only two industries, linen and shipbuilding, and that, therefore, whenever those two industries go down it would cause this kind of embarrassment, compelling Northern Ireland to go cap in hand begging from somewhere in. order to main an artificial Government, our reply is perfectly clear, namely, that this is bribery given to the workers of Northern Ireland, not to look at the truth, but to take their minds away from the truth.
The truth is that the workers of Northern Ireland have to learn from example after example of this nature that their natural position is to be part and parcel of one united, whole Ireland, and not to try to carry on an artificial life with two industries to maintain them and a Government which will go bankrupt every now and again, hampered by dwindling credit and bribed by British revenue officers. Sometimes it may be so, sometimes not. The workers of Northern Ireland must realise that there will not be perpetually a Tory Government prepared to assist an artificial and reactionary Government in this way. At some time there may be an honest Government in this country, which may refuse to support artificial, dishonest and reactionary Governments elsewhere. The simple lesson for the workers of Belfast is that they are in danger. Their position is jeopardised, their benefits will be embezzled and used for military purposes; their contributions are in danger; their life is made artificial. The one obvious lesson for the workers of Northern Ireland is that they should join hands with the workers of Southern Ireland, and live in a happy state as one whole, united
Ireland, living upon their own work and not upon bribery or political corruption.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I desire to put one or two additional points upon which I think the Committee would like to hear some explanation from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have listened with very great care to all the speeches in this Debate, and I think that probably insufficient attention has been paid to the very large sum of money which is involved in this proposal. The White Paper makes it plain that within the limits of the remaining part of the present financial year we shall be committed to £680,000, and then it lays down for the next four years a kind of figure which I very much fear will be a minimum, namely, £875,000, making in all rather more than £4,000,000, which we are proposing to give, whatever may be said to the contrary, by way of an out-and-out gift. It is only when the annual liability in succeeding years reaches £1,000,000 that the British Exchequer is entitled, without any danger of being exposed to a charge of breach of faith, to revise and reopen this agreement. Therefore, at a time when we are curtailing the work of our own Unemployment Grants Committee in this country, when we are banging the door in the face of the necessitous areas, when we are piling additional burdens upon the local authorities from one end of Britain to the other, £4,000,000, at the very least, is provided for the Exchequer of Northern Ireland, and it may be nearer £5,000,000 or more before the day is done.
That is a very remarkable situation for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is so careful about saving the taxpayers' money, at any rate in platform speeches in the country, but finds it altogether impossible to do so on the Floor of the House when confronted with a claim of this kind. While, however, I have made this preliminary introductory statement, I do not want it to be assumed for a moment that there is any lack of sympathy on the part of those on these benches with the distresses and difficulties of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend who followed the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his introductory statement was perfectly correct when he said that this matter has been under discussion for two or three years, and there is no secrecy about it at all. In point of fact, public reference has been made to
this demand from time to time, and previous Chancellors of the Exchequer, not of our political persuasion, were obliged to turn it down, just as we ourselves found it altogether impossible to admit the claim. Now, under the changed conditions of gathering gloom for the present Government, this request has been conceded. It is our business to find out exactly what is involved, and I propose to approach that question from two points of view—firstly, from the point of view of the exact financial relationship between Northern Ireland and this country, across which this proposal cuts diagonally at the present time; and, secondly, from the point of view of the proposal of my hon. Friends behind me, that this grant should be turned into a loan rather than be made an out-and-out gift from the Exchequer.
Let me say a word or two on the first proposition. Hon. Members have said a great deal about their experience since the Government of Ireland Act was passed in 1920, but, surely, it is not unfair argument now to suggest that, after all, that was a bargain. They may not have wanted it very much, but it was an agreement, and, whatever view we may take of the finance of that Bill, it is now an Act of Parliament, and the operation of the finance of that Act of Parliament was placed in the hands of a Joint Exchequer Board, which is entrusted with the periodical systematic review of the financial relations between the two countries; and, in particular, under a very complicated Clause, which I believe no human being has been able adequately to explain, that Joint Exchequer Board is invited to look to the taxable capacity of the two areas, to keep them in comparison, and to see that they march, as regards the broad liabilities of the time, side by side. What is the state of affairs in this proposal? We come now to another extraneous element, divorced from the general relationship of Northern Ireland to this country financially—a proposal to expend at least £4,000,000, and it may be more, on a specific service which, for reasons that we all deplore, has got into difficulty in Northern Ireland. It does not, however, stand alone. Other requests have been preferred by the leaders of political life in Northern Ireland, and some of them have been conceded.
7.0 P.M.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his introductory statement, appeared to me to be very much in the position of counsel who knew that his prisoner was hopelessly guilty, and that he had better plead in mitigation of sentence. He did not clear up the precise extent to which these grants have made an inroad upon that clear sum which, judged on the basis of comparable taxable capacity, Northern Ireland should pay to this country year by year. Be that as it may, the House of Commons must consider what it is going to do in circumstances of that kind. I listened with the greatest respect and attention to the whole of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who represents one of the divisions of Belfast. I regret very much some of the passages in his speech, but one was bound to sympathise with that part of his argument which related to the position of the workers in the shipyards and in other industries of Belfast. While, however, we make the largest concession to difficulties of that kind, we cannot in the British House of Commons go on making one inroad after another on exceptional lines into the work of the Joint Exchequer Board and the operation of the formula to which I have referred, simply because special cases are advanced. There must be an end of that state of affairs; otherwise we are going to alter materially the whole financial relationship between the two countries. This is a very large commitment from the point of view of a limited territory and a limited population like those of Northern Ireland, as compared with existing conditions in Great Britain. While it is true that we are pouring out £800,000,000 a year in expenditure, nevertheless £5,000,000 is not to be neglected. I do, therefore, beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us definitely to-night whether this is the last of these special claims upon the British Treasury. If I judged the right hon. Gentleman aright, he will have very great difficulty in making any final statement of that kind, and, if that be true, it is all the more reason why we should lay down the law very firmly before we approach this Bill in the House of Commons.
Now I came to the actual proposal itself. I invite the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether
there is, after all, the kind of final case which they believe exists against our proposal to turn this into a loan. It is not disputed that that would be to behave exactly towards Northern Ireland as we behaved to our own fund in this country. Clearly, before we commit ourselves to £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, we must be satisfied that Northern Ireland, financially and economically, has done everything in its power in this matter. Now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in my view, is very far from having made that case. Before any of us go to borrow in any quarter, we endeavour to shoulder all possible burden. While it is true that the two leading industries in Northern Ireland have suffered materially, yet in Northern Ireland, just as in many other parts of the country, there are many good lives outside of the sphere of national unemployment insurance which ought to be in the sphere of unemployment insurance schemes if they are to be actuarially sound. Has that possibility been considered?
In the second place, a great deal is made of the fact that there is a burden of about £3,500,000 of debt, or of borrowing, that they have incurred in order to maintain these rates of benefit. We agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there cannot be any reduction in the rates of benefit. It is not a conceivable proposition at the present time, but after all there is some unfairness in the comparison between the two deficits. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that our deficit now was between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000. He said that the £3,500,000 which had been borrowed in Northern Ireland was a very large proportion compared with us and our very much wider economic investments. If you take a paper view, that is quite true, but from any actuarial or financial view it is not a proper basis at all. At one time our deficit in Great Britain was as high as £16,000,000. While it is perfectly true that we got that down I am very far from being satified that, on the whole, Northern Ireland has borne a greater burden than this country. That seems to me a perfectly fair analysis of the situation.
There was another argument employed by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir M. Macnaghten) which went a very long
way indeed in order to establish our claim for a loan rather than a grant. He said that those two industries may recover very quickly, and I very much hope that that is going to be the case. Anybody who has analysed the finance of any unemployment insurance fund, or indeed of any other insurance fund, knows that when you get a period of reasonable trade at all your deficit is very soon extinguished, and, if we had a chance, we could very soon pile up substantial funds. As regards the Unemployment Insurance Fund in this country, from its inception practically it never got a chance, because the vast volume of unemployment descended immediately upon it before it had built up any great reserves. If the argument of the hon. Member for Londonderry is sound and they are going to recover very quickly in their two industries, then it is rather unjust to claim from us £4,000,000 or £5,000,000, and they ought not to object to such an arrangement by way of loan that would enable us to get rid of such a liability at the earliest possible moment.
I can anticipate the reply of hon. Members opposite. They will say to us that if this is put on the basis of a loan they will not in fact achieve parity between these two funds. That may be the case, but I am not sure that we are called upon to set up strict parity in the operation of two unemployment insurance funds of this character. We will discharge all the duties we owe to Ulster if we give such financial accommodation on terms of repayment as will enable this fund to carry on without too great a burden upon Ulster at the present time. I believe we can easily do that, at the same time making such extra calls as it is right to make on the people of Ulster at the present time. Finally, I suggest to the Committee that there is a perfectly sound case for the Amendment, and I trust that hon. Members, who are interested outside and occasionally here in getting down the gigantic obligations of the State, will respond to that call. One thing is clear about the financial position of Great Britain to-day, and that is that the 44,000,000 people in Great Britain will have to shoulder by far the greater part of the post-War obligations. Hardly a week passes but we have fresh burdens thrust upon our shoulders. All that we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to do is to save
the people of Great Britain, not by denying help to Ulster, but by turning it into legitimate, sound and constructive loan.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 251.

Division No. 36.]
AYES.
[7.8 p.m.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Baker, Walter
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Barr, J.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, G. H.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Briant, Frank
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Broad, F. A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Bromfield, William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillip


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Connolly, M.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thurtle, E.


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lansbury, George
Townend, A. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lee, F.
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Livingstone, A. M.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
Lowth, T.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dunnico, H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Mackinder, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Fenby, T. D.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
March, S.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Morris, R. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Wright, W.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Owen, Major G.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Groves, T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Warne.


Grundy, T. W.
Pethick-Lawernce, F. W.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Elliot, Captain Walter E.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Elveden, Viscount


Albery, Irving James
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Campbell, E. T.
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fermoy, Lord


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fielden, E. B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clarry, Reginald George
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Berry, sir George
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Ganzoni, Sir John


Betterton, Henry B.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gates, Percy


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Cope, Major William
Gee, Captain R.


Blundell, F. N.
Couper, J. B.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Boothby, R. J. G.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Goff, Sir Park


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gower, Sir Robert


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Grace, John


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Briggs, J. Harold
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Gretton, Colonel John


Briscoe, Richard George
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovl')
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hammersley, S. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Dean, Arthur Weillesley
Hanbury, C.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dixey, A. C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bullock, Captain M.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harland, A.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Smithers, Waldron


Hartington, Marquess of
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Macquisten, F. A.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Haslam, Henry C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hawke, John Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (will'sden, E.)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Merriman, F. B.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Storry-Deans, R.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moles, Thomas
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hills, Major John Waller
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Murchison, C. K.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Holland, Sir Arthur
Nelson, Sir Frank
Templeton, W. P.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Tinne, J. A.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Vanghan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Penny, Frederick George
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hurd, Percy A.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hurst, Gerald B.
Philipson, Mabel
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Raine, W.
Wells, S. R.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ramsden, E.
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jacob, A. E.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Remer, J. R.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Remnant, Sir James
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Rentoul, G. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Ropner, Major L.
Wise, Sir Fredric


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rye, F. G.
Withers, John James


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Salmon, Major I.
Wolmer, Viscount


Knox, Sir Alfred
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Womersley, W. J.


Lamb, J. Q.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Wood, E. (Cherst'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Loder, J. de V.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Looker, Herbert William
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l Exchange)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Shepperson, E. W.



MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McLean, Major
Skelton, A. N.
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Captain Viscount Curzon.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words
such agreement being limited in its operation to the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven.
Hon. Members on this side have some reason to be dissatisfied with the attitude adopted by the Government to-night. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was not particularly happy about the proposition he is asking the Committee to authorise and yet, although there has been quite a searching cross-examination with regard to the points at issue for three hours, we were not favoured with the courtesy of a reply to specific questions put by my right hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) and Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham). I noticed the Chancellor did not pay very much attention to the latter. I thought he was
engaged in a more or less private conversation. We cannot afford, in the present state of national finances, to let a question of this sort go for a period of four years without getting a specific reply to the questions that have been put. My right hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley asked whether this was the last of the demands made under the bargain with Ulster. We have had no answer to that question at all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh drew special attention to the position under the Joint Exchequer Board and the necessity for keeping as far as possible a parity between the two funds, and he asked specifically what would be the result of this inroad into the arrangements drawn up under the Government of Ireland Act. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question. A number of speeches from my hon. Friends on these benches have
had reference to the condition of necessitous areas in this country. It has been pointed out that, in effect, this is making a special grant to what we all admit is a necessitous area. We do not deny the special need of Ulster, but we also ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember that there is special need in many parts of our own country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): This Amendment must not be made an excuse for continuing the Debate on the previous Amendment. The question is that of limiting the time to 31st March, 1927. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to that.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think, if I am allowed to develop, I shall come to that point. We have been pressing again and again for grants from the National Exchequer. This is a grant from the National Exchequer being made for four years, without any guarantee yet that there will be any very substantial improvement in the national finances in the course of the next year or two. We might do very well with grants of that kind, say, after the period mentioned in my Amendment, in aid of the unemployed in our own necessitous areas if there are to be direct grants from the Exchequer for unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say, "You forget that we are dealing with specific proposals to adjust the actuarial position of the Unemployment Insurance Fund." That is so, but you are doing it by way of gift instead of the way you still insist our Employment Insurance Fund shall be dealt with in our own country, and that is by way of loan. Having regard to all these facts, to the unanswered questions that have been put, and to the need for us to have our hand upon this arrangement especially in view of the demand which must come insistently to the Treasury for aid for our own necessitous areas within the period at present covered by the Motion, I beg to move my Amendment.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The effect of the Amendment would be, of course, destructive of the Bill. The Bill is based on an agreement entered into with the Government of Northern Ireland, which agreement is set out in the Schedule. It is specifically for a period of four years, exclusive of the present year. If that agreement is altered in any way it is tantamount to the rejection of the Bill.
I am, therefore, bound to oppose the Amendment. I really do not think the rejection of the Bill is the issue before the Committee. It is clear that if nothing were going to be done to assist the Unemployment Fund in Northern Ireland, and if British trade unionists in Northern Ireland were left either to face complete bankruptcy or a substantial cut in the rates of benefit, or in the period of benefit, or a substantial increase of contributions—if the Committee realised that that was the issue I do not believe the Labour party would give its support to such a proposal, because it certainly would be a most reactionary proposal and one very inimical to the general interests of the working-class population of these islands. Indeed, to leave the shipyard workers of Belfast in a condition of marked inferiority to the shipyards of every other part of the country, having to shift for themselves, would be to strike a blow at the minimum standard which, albeit slowly, we have steadily endeavoured to build up here, and would be a policy inconsistent with anything we have a reasonable right to expect from the Labour party. But I gather from the hon. Gentleman that he moved his Amendment less with the intention of wrecking the Bill than of procuring from me answers to certain questions which were asked in the previous Debate. I am sorry if my not having replied on the Debate caused any offence. Indeed, I have to be most frightfully careful, because when I speak I run the risk of offending, and when I keep silent I run the same risk. I have to go along a narrow knife edge with a chasm of misfortune on either hand. I feel I have already made rather an inroad upon the attentions of the Committee, having spoken for nearly half an hour in introducing the Measure, and I did not think any new point had been elicited in the very interesting speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who closed the discussion. At least no new point was raised which I had not heard, I think, at least three times put and answered in the Committee, though I am quite ready to admit, collected as they were by the hon. Gentleman in his able summary, they were presented in a form which had the appearance, if not the reality of novelty. I will answer these three points.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman replies to points
made on the last Amendment, he will be quite out of order.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I was going to reply to points which were adduced on this Amendment by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and although they bear some similarity to matters which were touched upon previously, they stand in an altogether different context. The first question I was asked is, is this the last demand which will ever be made on the Imperial Parliament by the Government of Northern Ireland? Obviously I cannot answer that, but this I can say, that there is no bargain or undertaking of any sort or kind between the Imperial Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. There is no question whatever of any commitment in regard to the future. We have wound up the special police with this year. We are settling the question of unemployment on this basis, and that is all there is between the two Governments. I have answered that question as far as it is in the power of myself or any other human being to answer.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Are there any applications?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Applications for what?

Mr. ALEXANDER: From Northern Ireland.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any applications at all. The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Joint Exchequer Board. The work of the Joint Exchequer Board will not be affected in any way by this. The Joint Exchequer Board deals with what is the proper division of the yield of the taxes and the burden between the two countries. But this is a different matter. This is a matter that deals with the reinsurance of the two funds for unemployment, and I cannot conceive that there can be any injustice or disadvantage in that. After all, the Ulster trade unionist pays the same contribution as the same trade unionist does in this country. He has a certain benefit at present. It is no fault of his that the funds have been divided. They never would have been divided if the future could have been foreseen; they would have been kept together. If they had been kept together, it would have been much more disadvan-
tageous to the British taxpayer and to the British contributors, masters and men, to the Insurance Fund than the arrangement we are making now. We are making a thrifty arrangement, but, in some ways, rather a severe arrangement. I am satisfied that it is necessary to make a rather severe arrangement on the basis of only 75 per cent. of the relative deficiency, in order to secure the responsible control of the Government upon the spot in dealing with a matter which, as everyone knows, and perhaps no one better than hon. and right hon. Members opposite, is one of the most difficult and most painful processes in our modern industrial life, namely, the treatment of unemployed persons.
The last question which the hon. Member asked was in regard to necessitous areas. I do not admit that there is any analogy between this proposal and the case of the necessitous areas. The case of the necessitous areas is a question on which a Committee is sitting at the present time, and it has nothing whatever to do with this measure. This area of Ulster is suffering, like certain areas in England and Scotland are suffering. Belfast, the Clyde and the Tyne are all suffering acutely. Wherever there are shipbuilding centres they are suffering acutely. There is no difference between the burdens which they bear or the means which are taken to relieve their misfortunes, except this, that the Clyde and the Tyne are on the gigantic general fund of Great Britain, which in this hard year has only increased its indebtedness by something less than £1,000,000 although it has borrowing powers of £30,000,000, and has an income of nearly £50,000,000. The Ulster unemployed have to fall upon a Fund which has only 1/50th the strength and scale of the British Fund. They have gone into deficiency on that Fund to such an extent that if you translate it into corresponding terms of the British Exchequer, it would amount to a deficiency of £140,000,000. That is a shocking state of affairs. All that we are doing is trying to find some means, not of making it up to Ulster for not being in the General Fund, but some intermediate means of compensating her for the difficulty in which she is placed, without destroying local control, local responsibility or the incentive to economy which, undoubtedly, has to be continually operative in the mind of every Government.
I have tried to answer the questions as well as I can, and I hope I have given satisfaction to hon. Members opposite, who are rather hard to please. I suggest that as there has been such a general measure of agreement upon the objects of this Measure, apart from the methods, and as the only question open is whether we should proceed by loan or by the method of the Bill, that of re-insurance, we might be allowed now to come to a decision on the main question.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer this question? If before the end of four years the position of Northern Ireland recovers itself, and our position does not, and we continue to make up the deficiency in our own fund, as we do to-day by loan, shall we become eligible for any contribution from Northern Ireland, in view of the fact that, according to the White Paper, it is only when we make a grant to the Fund that we are entitled to any relief from the Ulster Fund.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The hon. Member is skilled in propounding most formidable and complex conundrums. I should very much like to have an opportunity of studying the one which has just fallen from his lips, in its perfect form and shape, a little more attentively before I endeavour to give an answer to it. I think it rests upon hypotheses which are not very likely to be realised, because there is a deficiency on the Ulster Fund at the present time of three and a half million pounds, which is a gigantic deficiency. The total local revenues of that fund are, if I remember rightly, I am speaking without having the figures before me, something like £700,000 or £800,000 a year from the subscriptions of employers and workmen.
With a deficiency in the present year amounting to £2,000,000, it seems to me very unlikely that the rate of unemployment will fall so fast that, not only will they be able to pay the cost entirely from their local fund, but, in addition, be able to pay off the three and a-half million pounds of debt which hangs over the fund, and to do all that in the space of the four years covered by this Measure. No, Sir; I think it is really very unlikely. We may well see the fund in a much better position, but I think it is asking too much of fortune to hope that the entire debt will be liquidated by
then. If the hon. Member repeated his question to me in two or three years' time, when things will be better, it would be appreciably nearer the confines of practical politics.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that this is not a uni-lateral, but a bi-lateral agreement from which we may gain something. He now says that that is a remote hypothetical consideration which is not likely to arise.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The right hon. Gentleman said he could not very well answer the question put by the hon. Member, and he then treated the House to several minutes debate without answering it. In these negotiations with the Ulster Government, was the question ever contemplated that the Ulster Insurance Fund might recover its position entirely? If that question was contemplated, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that it was his duty to secure from them an assurance that if that contingency did arise, they would reciprocate the generosity which we are now showing to them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is exactly the principle of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will read it.

Mr. HARDIE: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to make it appear that the Labour party are against the unemployed. I hope they will not do that outside. We are all anxious on these benches to help our own class everywhere, but we do not want it to be done on unequal terms. We have to pay attention to what we are doing. We want the same conditions everywhere. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to his statement, has been chiefly responsible for what he considers the great achievement of having only an increased indebtedness of £1,000,000 on the Fund in this country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think I was wrong in allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to certain points which had been raised on this Amendment, but which were really germane to the previous Amendment. I had some doubts as to whether this Amendment was really in order, but I took it that it was not meant to be anything that would materially alter the Agreement, but, merely a modification of the Agree-
ment. That must be the subject of discussion now. We cannot enter into the general question as to whether this is a grant to be made or not.

Mr. HARDIE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer was chiefly responsible for raiding the Unemployment Fund here, and sweeping men off the Employment Exchanges. If he can quote any reduction which shows an improvement between the unemployment here and in Northern Ireland, it is because the un employed here have been swept from the Unemployment Fund and put on to the boards of guardians. Whenever you make a differentiation between men who are in the same condition, you begin to create trouble for yourselves. You give assistance to Ireland—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is going into the whole question which was settled on the last Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: I was leading up to the term of four years. You cannot lead up to the four years unless you touch the arguments that were out of order, but which were allowed. If you are going to have a balance as between one unemployment area and another, you must have the thing working in a perfect balance. It becomes unbalanced if you allow one area to have a free grant while the other areas have to keep paying in and do not get a free grant. We have necessitous areas in Scotland which are suffering acutely, and we are in this position that we are unable to borrow. We get nothing, but grants are to be made to Northern Ireland. If we are to be given the same free grants, there will be no opposition to this grant going to Northern Ireland, but if the Government are going to refuse grants to our necessitous areas, we say it is unfair, and that there ought to be fair play between all parts of the Kingdom.

Mr. T. SHAW: The proposition is to make grants out of Imperial funds to the Northern Ireland Unemployment Insurance Fund—that is what it means—without knowing what is to take place during these few years. Surely, it is an elementary thing that in a state of affairs like this we ought to confine ourselves to one year, and then if the circumstances demand it at the end of the year, deal
with them as they are, but not deal with them in a way of which we have no conception. I have a very large amount of sympathy with the Ulster case, but the fact is that had Ulster been fortunate instead of unfortunate, there would have been no offer from Ulster to help out of the surplus on their fund, the fund in this country that was being badly hit. We have to look at the thing in every way. If Ulster had had a good time and she had contributed towards our shortcomings, one would have said at once now, in Ulster's difficulties, "Give the most generous treatment possible." But that is not the case. There is no indication that if Ulster had been fortunate she would not have taken full advantage of her position.
This Amendment does not refuse the grant. It says that the grant shall only be for one year, and then the Government can take what steps it like to deal with the circumstances as they exist. To make a grant of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 when we are talking all the time about the necessity of demanding that certain vital services should be cut, is wrong in principle and wrong in fact. The Government have surely enough in the proposal embodied in the Amendment, which gives them power to make a grant for one year, and to say at the end of that year, "You must prove your case if you want any more money from the Imperial Exchequer."

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: If we carry this Amendment hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite will be taking away from this country the possibility of any advantage from the reciprocal arrangement made. Almost every speaker so far has neglected the Clause of the Bill which provides that the Bill shall not he merely unilateral but shall be neutral. If the Amendment is carried it will deprive this country of any possibility of reaping any advantage in the three years subsequent to 1927.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is hypothetical, and we may never be able to get any money.

Sir J. MARRIOTT: If the Amendment is carried all possibility of this country obtaining any advantage from the reciprocal arrangement of the Bill is entirely removed.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no desire to mislead the Committee. In the answer which he gave to my question he was possibly actuated by a desire for brevity rather than accuracy. My question was, when these negotiations were being conducted with the Ulster Government, did he secure from them an assurance that, if in any future year their fund became prosperous, they would recompense us for our generosity? He answered that that was the whole principle of the Bill. It is true that

the Bill will be to a certain extent reciprocal, but only in respect of the deficiency for that particular year. Will it be reciprocal to cover the whole of the amount which we are now paying into the Ulster Exchequer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It will be reciprocal year by year.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 233.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman a question which may remove a misunderstanding that seems to be prevalent on this side of the House. Has the Northern Parliament given powers to the authorities in Northern Ireland to pay "able-bodied" relief to unemployed men and women? This is very important. Here unemployed persons who have been deprived of extended benefit are thrown upon the rates. There is a belief on this side of the House that the £3,500,000 deficit has
been caused by the extended benefit being prolonged in Northern Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance from that point of view, as to the position in Northern Ireland, it might alter the opinion of my colleagues here. Personally I would not like to give a vote that would harm my fellow trade unionists in Ireland, because I worked with them for 25 years, and I know and respect them very highly.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, I do not profess to speak for the Government of Northern Ireland, but I made inquiries
from every source open to me, and I understand that the administration of the unemployment insurance fund is exactly the same in Northern Ireland as here, with the same contributions, the same benefits, and the same principles. I am assured that that is the case. So far as the Treasury were able to ascertain from personal inquiry and minute study of the figures, the position of the workman and trade unionist in Northern Ireland is at present substantially and actually the same as that of his fellow trade unionist in the same trade union in the United Kingdom, with this one exception, that whereas in the United Kingdom there is a solvent fund to depend on, in the North of Ireland there is a fund manifestly unable to bear the burdens which will be cast upon it if the present rate of unemployment continues.

Mr. T. HENDERSON: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well the meaning of my question. It is this: If in Northern Ireland they have been using the Unemployment Insurance Act for the purpose of prolonging extended benefit and paying no out-door "able-bodied" relief, then in this country and in Scotland the position is entirely different. Here unemployed workmen are being thrown on the rates. Surely you do not expect us to give Northern Ireland a benefit to that extent. I am afraid that unless we can get an answer to the question we are bound to oppose the Motion.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hon. Members opposite have by repeated Divisions and Amendments offered uncompromising opposition to this Bill, and I am afraid that I do not hope to change the settled attitude of the Opposition. If it be true that the Unemployment Insurance Fund is administered in exactly the same way on both sides of the St. George's Channel, the question of what happens to the rates is really irrelevant. It may be—I do not know—that there is divergence in the policies adopted. At any rate, that is hardly our business. What we are concerned with in this House is to make sure that the Unemployment Insurance Fund is treated similarly and in the same spirit.

Mr. WALLHEAD: If the charge is correct, then it gives importance to the issue I raised myself with regard to the question of necessitous areas.

Mr. MOLES: May I say that hon. Members opposite are entirely mistaken, and I say that with every knowledge.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: The White Paper itself contains a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer giving an assurance on the part of the Government of Northern Ireland that
Our Ministry of Labour will in matters relating to our Unemployment Fund continue to follow any Regulations adopted by the Imperial Ministry of Labour.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

LONDON POWER COMPANY BILL (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Before we proceed with this Bill I want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he cannot arrange to have the previous White Papers relating to Trade Facilities placed in the Vote Office.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That question should be raised in Committee.

Mr. MAXTON: Am I not entitled to raise a matter affecting the proceedings of the House, in the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: No, that matter cannot be raised at this stage.

Major ATTLEE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day six months."
I shall set out briefly the general objection to proceeding with this Bill. My contention is that the introduction of this Bill is premature, and that it is in direct contravention of the policy of the Government and the policy with regard to electrical supply which has been laid down in this House. Under the Electricity Acts of 1919 and 1922 provision was made for setting up joint electricity authorities in various areas, to be delimited by the Electricity Commissioners who were themselves set up by the 1919 Act. The general intention of those Acts was to provide a cheap and abundant supply of electricity. In the course of time, after many difficulties, a Joint Electricity Authority for the Greater London area was established by an Order passed in July last, and in November of last year a Joint Electricity Authority for London and the home counties was established. On that authority were representatives of the company undertakers, local authority undertakers, local authorities representing consumers, railway companies, power companies, and the workers in the industry. That authority was directed under that Order to make provision for the co-ordination of electrical supply in its area, and as an annexe to that Order there was provided a technical scheme which, broadly speaking, laid down the principle that generation should be concentrated in a few economic large stations, and that in the course of time the smaller uneconomic stations should be closed down.
That Joint Electricity Authority although only constituted in November last, has already got to work. Its immediate work is to report on that technical scheme and bring it up to date. This Bill, however, seeks power to set up a capital station in the West London area before any report has been made on that technical scheme. Everyone will admit that the position in West London is such that provision must be made for additional supplies in that area for the load that will be forthcoming in the next few years. The London Power Company is putting forward a proposal for a capital station on the ground that it is bound to its constituent companies to supply energy
to them—the London Power Company being the creature of the 10-company group and having the general power of taking over the generating side of those companies. But the statement that they have an anticipated increase of the load in the West London area for their own undertakings, is only part of the truth, because in all the undertakings in West London, whether companies or local authorities, you will find practically a similar load curve, showing a continuous growth in all these types of undertaking, and the problem which the Joint Electricity Authority has to consider is the best means of meeting the forthcoming demand in the West London area in order to provide a cheap and abundant supply of electricity, not only for local authorities, but also for companies.

Sir JAMES REMNANT: And railway companies.

Major ATTLEE: It is quite clear that the general opinion of electrical experts is in favour of the large station as against a number of small stations, and the solution of the electricity problem in West London involves the setting up of one large super-station to take over generation for all those who demand a supply in that area. That is the solution which has commended itself to the Joint Electricity Authority, the composition of which I have explained to the House, and they have at once taken expert advice and they are already very well forward with plans for a generating station and are actually in negotiation for a site for that station. The position of the London Power Company is somewhat parochial. They are part of the London Joint Electricity Authority, they have a voice in the deliberations of the Joint Electricity Authority, and it would seem quite clear that their natural course would be to join with that authority in getting one great station for the West London area. They have, on the contrary, proceeded with this Bill, in which they seek power to acquire land on a specific site to set up a super-power station.
I want to take seriatim what are the points against the London Power Company's Bill. The first point I have already mentioned. It is that we do not want to have two separate authorities setting up
two big stations up-river; we want to get one. First of all, we claim that this is not, as a matter of fact, the best site available on the river. It has been suggested that this Bill might go forward and this site be purchased, and that then the question of who should erect the super-station should be a matter for the Electricity Commissioners, that the best man should win, and that the one approved by the Commissioners should take over this particular site, but the Joint Electricity Authority do not want to be bound by this site. We do not consider this is the best site, and we do not want either the Joint Electricity Authority or the London Power Company to be saddled with a site which is not wanted. One of the difficulties in the London area, as everybody who has studied the electrical question knows, is the multiplicity of small undertakings. Particularly in the West London area, you have a large number of small companies, you have some large companies, and you have some large and some small local authorities, and it is the very greatest difficulty to get these various authorities to combine together. Unfortunately, as a legacy of the past there is a great deal of jealousy and suspicion between company and local authority, between company and company, and between local authority and local authority, and there is rather a tendency to object to taking supplies from the particular type of authority with which a company or a local authority does not agree.
We have found that a vital difficulty in the task of the Joint Electricity Authority, where, unfortunately, without compulsory powers, we have to try and persuade the owners of uneconomic stations either to cease to expand them, or to close them down and take bulk supplies from some other quarter. We find an objection on the part of a local authority to take from a company, or sometimes of a company to take from another company. There is a general fear among the smaller authorities that they may be somehow drawn into the octopus arms of a large company, and the only way to get over that is that a super-station should be erected and controlled by the Joint Electricity Authority, on which all these types of undertaking are represented. A super-station requires a big demand. It is quite clear, to my mind, that if this station goes forward for the ten group companies alone,
you have, it is true, the demand of the ten group companies, but you have the very greatest difficulty in persuading other companies and local authorities to take supply from them. It may be argued that the London Power Company are not out to supply anyone but themselves. Well; we had that same thing in the East side of London, when the Barking Station was erected. It was set up merely to meet the demand of the County Company itself, but, as a matter of fact, in order to work that super-station you have the most violent efforts being made by the County Company to collect a load in every part of the area—East, North. South, and even West. It is of the essence of the successful working of a super-station that you should get the utmost load concentrated on it, and that is all in favour of the Joint Electricity Authority's plan of one large station.
Next is the question of finance. There is no doubt that the Joint Electricity Authority can raise money as cheaply as, and we say more cheaply than, any company, and the Joint Electricity Authority is not there to make a profit. It is there to provide a cheap and abundant supply of electricity to all undertakings. The London Power Company is the creature of 10 other companies, and these 10 other companies are out to make a profit. Under the agreement with the London County Council their profits are, it is true, somewhat controlled, but hon. Members will recollect that the ward motes of the City of London have been much troubled by the prices charged by some of these companies, and even we in Stepney have been flattered by our wealthy neighbour practically courting us and longing to take a supply from Stepney. The Joint Electricity Authority can raise money more cheaply and cannot make a profit, and that is a great advantage to all supplying authorities. They do not want to be in the hands of a company generating for a profit; they want the generation end of the stick in the hands of an authority that is going to produce abundant and cheap electricity.
Another point is that, if you have this Bill going forward, as it is, you will have a certain competition set up between the London Power Company and other supplying undertakings, even, for instance, the County Company, and however hon. Members opposite may be wedded to the idea of competition, I think they will
agree that competition is the one thing you do not want in electrical supply. If you are to get a cheap and abundant supply, you do not want to have duplicate lines all over the place. A further point is that, under the technical scheme annexed to this Order, it is the duty of the Joint Electricity Authority to take care generally of the electrical needs of the area. The London Power Company comes along, without the slightest reference to the technical scheme, and jumps in with this Bill, and it seems rather like an attempt to rush the Joint Electricity Authority before it has had time to function. Another thing that it is also anticipating is the Government's electricity proposals. The whole electrical world is waiting, with bated breath, to hear what the Government electrical proposals are going to be, and we want to know exactly how they will fit in with the Joint Electricity Authority's duties and powers, and how they will be affected by this Bill. Clearly there again, therefore, we have a sort of anticipation or rushing in by the London Power Company. Surely this is a great mistake on the part of the Company. I think anyone will admit that the Joint Electricity Authority commands to-day the services of a large number of men of high technical ability and great business experience. It can command the services of electrical experts, and there is no doubt about its ability or its power under the Acts and Orders to undertake this business of running a great power station for West London.
I am inclined to think that the real opposition does not come so much from the company itself as from the various interests that make money out of the promotion of Bills and such like—the experts, the agents, that hang around the business of electricity. If it be said that there may be these objections to the Bill, but that it might be given a Second Reading and allowed to go to, a Committee to be fully discussed, I Bay that we want to avoid the heavy expense of proceedings in Committee, the heavy fees to counsel, the heavy fees to technical experts, Parliamentary agents, and so on, when the whole of the struggle centres on one particular point only. As the promoters very frankly say in their statement, "Practically the whole object of the Bill is to enable the promoters to obtain a site." We do not want to have
days and days in Committee, and the piling up of expenses over a question of site. Let us settle the matter straight away on Second Reading. This is not the time to have produced this Bill. This is not the way to look after the best interests of supply in the western part of the Joint Electricity Authority's area. It runs contrary to the provisions of the Order passed by this House only last July. It runs contrary to the whole policy laid down in the Electricity Acts, and in every report that we have had by committees and commissions. It is in essence entirely parochial. On the Joint Electricity Authority we find that one of the difficulties we have to get over, and which, I think, we are getting over, is the excessive parochialism of some companies, and also, at times, of some local authorities.
It is very regrettable that such a big undertaking as the London Power Company should come forward with such an extremely narrow-minded scheme as this. The Joint Electricity Authority want in every way to meet the demand for a supply of the London Power Company. The London Power Company will be consulted on the matter of the Joint Electricity Authority's station. They are represented on the Joint Electricity Authority. They will have their say. They will be able to give us the benefit of their technical and business advice. To my mind, the question of this station is a test question with regard to the whole attitude of the Government and this House towards the electrical problem. If we really wish to deal with electricity in a large way, we have got to forget parochialism. We have got to forget petty jealousy. We have got to come in in a good spirit, and that is the work that in the whole London area the Joint Electricity Authority are trying to do. We are trying to concentrate the generation there in the hands of one big authority. This will be best for all suppliers of electricity. It will be best for all users of electricity. It will be best for large users and for small users. I hope, therefore, this House will save expense—and we are all out for economy to-day—and that it will save endless time to those concerned with the supply of electricity in the London area, by refusing to give a Second
Reading to this Bill, which, after all, is only an attempt—a misguided attempt—to get in first and queer the pitch for larger schemes.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.
Of course, none of us knows exactly what view the Government are going to take on this matter, but it must be plain to the mind of every Member in this House, from the discussions which took place last year and the year before, with reference to the Joint Electricity Authority, that it was not the desire of the Labour party that we should have a joint electricity authority, and as it is constituted. But that was he best we could get from the Government of the day, and the Government argued very much the necessity for this authority to be set up as soon as possible, and given a long tenure. Having done that, surely the Government are not going to support one of the companies, which is a partner in connection with this Joint Electricity Authority, in bringing out their 10 companies to set up a super-station, when the Joint Electricity Authority are about to do the same thing. No doubt there has been a big increase in West London in factories, industrial buildings and dwellings, and it does require a good large super-station; but that should be done by the Joint Electricity Authority, and not by one of the companies that is a partner in the concern. I certainly hope the Government will not permit it to be done, and that the House will say it is not required. The company's help, skill and assistance are required in the Joint Electricity Authority to make it a good big going concern, and of benefit to the community.

Mr. HANNON: The House has been treated by the hon. and gallant Member for Limehouse (Major Attlee) this evening to a repetition of the series of arguments he used when the Electricity (No. 1) and (No. 2) Bills were before the House last year. The House ought at once to understand that the Bill before us this evening really arises out of a definite contract and understanding between all the parties concerned in the long series of negotiations which preceded the passing of last year's Act, and if the hon. Gentleman is coming down to the House this evening and asking the House
to depart from a definite understanding between all the parties concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "No," and "When?"] Last year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not with us."] Yes, the London County Council, the Borough Councils—

Mr. LANSBURY: No.

Mr. HANNON: Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) would not be satisfied with any suggestion coming from this side of the House. We all know for what he stands. He wants the nationalisation of this industry as well as of all other industries. His position in this House is now, and has always been, a perfectly logical one, but what the House is being asked to do to-night is go back on an understanding definitely established precedent to the passing of the Electricity (No. 1) and (No. 2) Bills last year.

Major ATTLEE: To what understanding does the hon. Member refer? I was representing local authorities in all the discussions.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that before No. 1 and No. 2 Bills came before this House last year, a whole series of negotiations took place, that the London County Council called in an eminent accountant, that there was a continuous exchange of views with regard to adjusting the new scale of charges for electricity supply, and it was definitely understood between all parties concerned that a Bill of this kind would necessarily follow the passing of the No. 2 Bill last year.

Major ATTLEE: That is absolutely incorrect. The discussion was solely as to the scale of charges. The question of this Bill was never discussed—not one word.

Mr. HANNON: There is a body in existence comprising representatives of these 10 companies, known as the Electricity Supply Committee, 1920, Limited. The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know that that body was in existence up to the passing of the No. 2 Act of last year. He knows perfectly well that this London Power Company is the new title of that 1920 Electricity Committee.

Major ATTLEE: That has nothing to do at all with sites.

Mr. HANNON: Yes, certainly. I admit at once that there was no definite
arrangement, but with respect to the sites another body has taken the question up. The arguments produced to the House this evening by hon. Members opposite might easily be summed up by saying that hon. Members opposite do not believe in any scheme of electricity supply which it not in accordance with the principles, so frequently, so explicitly, and so forcibly laid down by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).

Mr. LANSBURY: Hear, hear!

Mr. HANNON: Hon. Gentlemen opposite want to eliminate private enterprise root and branch, particularly in this kind of public utility services, so that the State shall be the dominant factor in dealing with these great blessings of civilisation. In point of fact, the No. 2 Act of last year definitely conferred upon the London Power Company which, of course, is the successor of the London Electricity Supply Committee of 1920 the power to erect generating stations and to supply electricity to all the genuinely subsidiary companies. If hon. Members will look at Section 3 of the No. 2 Act of last year, they will find that after various preliminary observations it goes on to say:
The company shall be deemed to be a power company for such an area of supply, and the company may supply, subject to the provisions of this Act, and generate a supply of electricity …..
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite contest the substance of that Clause of that Act of last year? This Bill is simply asking for power to purchase land to put up a large generating station at Brentford, or in that neighbourhood, in order to supply these 10 subsidiary companies, to meet obligations undertaken by direction of Parliament in the Act of last year, to meet the requirements of railway companies, and the needs of a constantly expanding demand for the supply of electricity over an area which it is proposed to cover. Hon. Members are pretty consistent in what they do, but are they clear that they understand exactly what it is proposed to do? Is that clearly in their minds? The direct result of passing the No. 2 Act of last year was to organise—the central purpose of the scheme was to supply electricity on a larger scale, and erect a super-station at some convenient place outside London. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that under the
Order of last year a Joint Electricity Authority was set up, and its functions extend over the whole country of London and Middlesex, and parts of the six adjacent counties. Upon this London Power Company was placed obligations, after the passing of the No. 2 Act of last year, to supply the 10 companies which comprise that London power area with electricity up to 1971, except in the case of one company, which is obliged to supply its own area in London for a period of 10 years. By the Act the company is authorised to make and supply electricity to the Joint Electricity Authority, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would lead the House to believe—though his arguments were perfectly fair—that the Joint Electricity Authority was the one and the only one which ought to be invested with the privilege of putting up super-stations. Why, this Act of last year definitely empowered the London Power Company, which now comes to this House, to supply electricity to the same Joint Electricity Authority. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman admit that?

Major ATTLEE: Certainly, it is quite true that the London Power Company is given power to supply electricity, but the Joint Electricity Authority may itself generate or may take supplies in bulk from anyone else. I am not suggesting that it has exclusive powers of generation.

Mr. HANNON: The position is clear, I think, from what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, and Parliament has been exceedingly wise in placing this provision in the Act because the Joint Electricity Authority is not prepared to give an undertaking at present to supply in bulk. Somebody with the initiative and capital must undertake this great project to provide for the clamant needs of London. If hon. Gentlemen opposite carry the House with them it means that you are going to throw the whole organisation of the electricity supply in the London area into a state of chaos until the Joint Electricity Authority is able, after long and protracted negotiations, and in the face of the difficulties and technical problems involved, to arrive at some arrangement after, it may be, 12 months, or it may be three or four years.

Major ATTLEE: The London Electricity Authority is in a position to supply electricity as soon as it has power to acquire land compulsorily. If the hon. Gentleman's party will give that power they can get on with their scheme.

Mr. HANNON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is perfectly right. The Joint Electricity Authority does require authority from Parliament to acquire land, but it wants something else, it wants capital to put up its great power station, and does the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that the Joint Electricity Authority, with no scheme yet elaborated, having made no attempt, so far as I know, to proceed with the examination of its technical scheme, is in a position to provide the capital for that super-station, whereas the London company has had its capital subscribed four times over in two hours this morning? We cannot keep these schemes hung up waiting for the moment when the Joint Electricity Authority will be able to arrange its plans, to complete its organisation and go to the public for capital. We have got the capital, we have got our scheme ready, we are prepared to go to work at once. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, protagonists of the Joint Electricity Authority, have nothing to offer to the House to-night as against the definite, concrete, carefully-evolved scheme which we are prepared to submit to the Committee upstairs when this Bill goes before them.
Let me ask the House to remember the obligations imposed upon the London Power Company by last year's Act. One of the ten companies embraced by this London Power Company is under contract to supply 30,000 kilowatts yearly to the Southern Railway Company, with the further condition that, if called upon after reasonable notice, the London Power Company must supply 60,000 further kilowatts, and the Company have had information, I understand, that a demand will be made in a very short time for that supply. Is the whole convenience of the passenger traffic of the Southern Railway to be held up until the London Joint Electricity Authority, in its present, if I may say so respectfully, embarrassed condition, is in a position to organise a supply? Hon. Gentlemen opposite must not think they can bamboozle this House with arguments of that kind. All over the West London area there is a continually increasing demand for electricity,
and the London Power Company, as representative of the ten constituent companies, is not in a position to give any guarantee that it can meet this demand unless it gets power to erect a super-station. Two eminent electrical engineers have advised the London Power Company and the ten companies that unless the increased supply which will be available from this station can be provided in the next three or four years, the conditions as to electricity supply in London will be exceedingly serious, and the Company will not be able to discharge the obligations imposed upon it by the Act passed last year. Why have they come to Parliament? To ask Parliament to give them powers to carry out a scheme which Parliament ordered them to carry out by the Act of last year. The substance of this Bill is nothing more than this: they say to this House, "You imposed upon us last year certain definite obligations. We come now to ask you to give us powers to carry out the obligations' you laid upon our shoulders." I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite will deny that, in point of fact, that is the substance of the legislation passed by this House.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is what you asked for.

Mr. HANNON: The opposition to this Bill comes from the body with enthusiastic devotion to ideas which opposes all private enterprise projects coming before this House. We here who are accustomed to the speeches of hon. and gallant and learned Gentlemen opposite have an admiration for their attachment to these theory-chasing objectives.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the fact that the hon. Member is speaking for the companies concerned, and in view of the fact that the companies have already gone to the public for money for this particular project, will he tell us whether, before they put out their prospectus, they had some undertaking from any authoritative source that this project would be supported in the House?

9.0 P.M.

Mr. HANNON: How can I answer that question? I know nothing whatever about the circumstances under which this money has been procured. I am not speaking here to-night on behalf of the companies, I am speaking on behalf of the public, on behalf of the interests of one of the greatest of the public utility
services of London. I am sure my hon. Friend opposite in putting that question to me quite forgot that I may sometimes ask him a similar question when he is speaking on some subject in this House, and it may be the hon. Gentleman will hear from me in the same fashion on a similar occasion in connection with some Measure he will bring before the House. The ten companies were given, in the most clearly-defined way, financial and administrative independence under the Order of last year and the Act of last year. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite wants is that that independent financial and administrative position conferred upon the body representative of the ten companies—what he wants is that that body should be deprived of the privileges conferred upon it by Parliament in the Act of last year.
We are supporting this Bill this evening because it is the quickest way in which the preliminary proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman in relation to the Act of 1919 can be brought into effect. We private enterprise people are really giving the citizens of London and the home counties a cheap and abundant supply of electricity under the most rigid conditions as laid down by this House. In the arrangements made last year a sliding scale was established under which the price of electricity to the public has been limited in accordance with the dividend-paying capacity of a company. Therefore, from this side of the House, we claim that projects of this kind, administering as they do to the immediate needs of this great city, providing power and light, and facilitating transport, and in all these things giving effect to wise, discreet and definite provisions of Parliament in the Act of last Session, should not be rejected by this House. On the contrary, the House should regard it as its plain duty, supplemental to its Act of last year, to endow the company with the power to enable it to proceed with its great work of erecting this super-station and provide not merely for the necessities of London to-day, but for the future.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Candidly, I am rather sorry this Bill was not held back until the Government electricity proposals had been brought forward, because it
must be obvious that the House would be better able to pass judgment upon a scheme such as this when it has got the whole electricity proposals before it, and is able to see exactly how they will affect a scheme such as this. Be that as it may, it seems to me that the House, having now heard the arguments of the hon. Member who opposed the Bill and my hon. Friend who supports the Bill, might now come to a conclusion without much more discussion, in order to enable us to take the other important business with which the House has to deal this evening. I myself take up an absolutely impartial and non-committal attitude with respect to the Bill at the present time, though I would advise the House of this, that before the Measure leaves this House, before it goes out of the control of the House—if it gets a Second Reading and comes down for Third Reading the House would certainly be well advised to insist that Section 11 of the Electricity Act, 1919, should be inserted in the Bill. I will read to the House the gist of that Section. It is that notwithstanding anything in any special Act or Order in force at the passing of this Act it shall not be lawful for any authority, company or person to establish a new or extend an existing generating station or main transmission line without the consent of the Electricity Commissioners, which consent shall not be refused or made subject to compliance with conditions to which the authority, company or person object unless a local inquire has been held.
What does that mean? It means that the Electricity Commissioners will have to decide whether this station shall he built by the London Power Company or by the Joint Electricity Authority. I am not making any new suggestion by putting this proposition forward because the same Clause was put into the County of London Electricity Supply Act, and it was thought right and proper that the Electricity Commissioners should decide this very difficult point. Therefore I suggest that if and when this Bill comes down for Third Reading we should see that there is this Clause in the Bill, and a Clause which gives an option to the Joint Electricity Authority to purchase the site.
Last of all, I wish to remind the House that, when the Third Reading is taken,
then the Government electricity proposals will, I hope and trust, be before the House, and will be known to hon. Members. They can then judge as to what reception they should give to this Bill. I think it is only fair that I should put those considerations to the House. I do not want to bind myself either for or against this Bill, but I think such conditions as I have alluded to ought to be inserted.

Mr. SCURR: I think it is always a very remarkable fact that whenever we are considering the question of an electric supply for London that, so far as the friends of municipal supplies and coordinating the supplies of London are concerned, it is the Members representing London who put forward that idea in opposition to the promoters of a private company, and under these circumstances, I am not surprised to find an hon. Member representing Birmingham or some other provincial city coming in and trying to instruct London as to how it should conduct its electricity business. We might have understood things better if some London Member sitting on the Conservative benches had risen to support this Measure, although he might have been in favour of the view which has been put forward by the hon. Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon).
Hon. Members have heard the arguments used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Limehouse (Major Attlee) in moving the rejection of this Bill. The hon. Member for Moseley said that he used the same arguments as were used last year, but in saying that the hon. Member is only trying to mislead the House by camouflage. The same hon. Member also said that on this side we were simply concerned with questions of nationalisation and the municipalisation of industry, and that was why he said we were putting forward precisely the same arguments. I would like to remind him that the arguments put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Limehouse were not the arguments put forward last year at all. We fought the battle last year and we were beaten in the Division Lobby, and we had to accept the result of the Division, but when that Division took place what was one of the reasons urged upon us for supporting the London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill? Speaking in reference to that Bill
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said:
I have tried to draw as well as I can a picture of electricity as it should develop in the future. I hope I have helped people to see that there is a lot to be done, that the thing we are looking to is to co-ordinate the supply itself, to have the control of London electricity in the hands of London folk, who will get a cheaper rate of electricity. We may have differences of a parochial type. We may have a difference of policy as to private ownership; but really the establishment of a joint electricity authority transcends all these questions together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1925; col. 1,432, Vol. 180.]
That was an argument which appealed to hon. Members opposite, and now to-day that Joint Electricity Authority is in being. The promoters of this Bill are represented upon that authority and I presume will take part in its deliberations. This authority for London is not a Socialist majority but an authority on which the majority of the members belong to the Municipal Reform party, and the chairman of that authority is a distinguished member of the Municipal Reform party. The chairman of that authority and all those associated with him, as well as those who take the point of view we take as representatives of labour, are all united in our opposition to this Bill.
A most powerful argument has been put forward by the Minister of Transport when he said that he would have preferred that this Bill had been postponed until we had before us the Government's electricity proposal. We do not now know what the Government proposals are, or whether they may have far-reaching consequences, but if we are going simply to divide up the areas of London, giving powers to various companies and even to different local authorities, I think we should very carefully consider the proposals of the Government, because otherwise we shall have even greater chaos in our electric undertakings than we have to-day. The hon. Member for Moseley asked what guarantee was there that the Joint Electricity Authority can supply the needs of London? I say they have the same guarantee and the same powers as the hon. Member has been claiming for this new Power Company.
The Joint Electricity Authority can carry out its powers just as the London
Power Company can; and the fact that it is a co-ordinated authority and represents various municipal undertakings and represents the whole of London and not any particular section of it is a very important consideration. The hon. Member for Moseley said that Parliament had imposed powers and duties upon the London Power Company. When the hon. Member said that he must have had his tongue in his cheek, because we did not impose upon the London Power Company those powers. On the contrary, that company came and asked for them, and we certainly should not have imposed such powers upon them under any circumstances. Therefore, the imposition complained of is what the company sought themselves, and therefore that is a ludicrous argument. So far as the Joint Electricity Authority has the opportunity it is now considering a scheme and conducting negotiations, and if this Bill is passed it cuts across the scheme of the Joint Electricity Authority and will only make for further chaos. In my judgment the House will be well advised, after what the Minister of Transport has said, in refusing a Second Reading to this Bill.

Sir GEORGE HUME: In view of certain remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) with reference to the attitude of the London County Council, I must make the position clear. It is true that we came to an agreement with the Power Company which has been embodied in the No. 2 Act of Parliament, and we stand by every word of that agreement. I would like to point out, however, that the hon Member for Moseley has not quite got the point. No one denies that the Company has the power to erect stations but the municipal authorities have also power to do the same. The fact is that one of the main things that was considered at the time when all these negotiations were going on, not only with the London County Council but with municipal undertakings as well, was that a public scheme for the development of electricity in London was worked out by three important parties and an agreement was arrived at.
One of the most important duties of the Joint Electricity Authority is that it should now work out a scheme as a whole for London, and not merely deal with one part here or there. The authority, which has been in being for
scarcely four months, has set itself to the task of working out a scheme of this kind. The London Power Company is represented on that body, and it seems to me extraordinarily inconvenient, as the Minister has said, that at this moment a Bill of this kind should come forward, definitely ear-marking a certain area where a super-station or whatever kind of station it may be, is to be constructed, just when the authority is trying to come to a decision as to what stations should be enlarged, what stations should be left as they are at the present moment, and what stations should be scrapped. I find myself in a difficult position, but I think it is extremely unfortunate that we should have to come to a decision on this matter at the present moment, especially in view of the developments that lie ahead. I make no reference to the question whether the station should be municipally controlled or controlled by a company; the point is not whether it ought to be either, but where the station that is most needed should be situated and what its size should be, and that it should fit in with the general scheme which is being worked out for London. On that ground I cannot support the Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: We have just listened to a very weighty and explicit speech, and I may remind the House that for many years the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume) was chairman of the Electricity Committee of the London County Council, and gave the most devoted attention to the whole problem, studying it from end to end. He had the advice of all the best engineers and experts in the country, and I think the House will be well advised to follow his example and throw out this Bill. I may also add that the hon. Member for Greenwich was leader of the Conservative party in the London County Council for 10 years, and was a very rigid opponent of municipal enterprise in all its forms; but he is a fair-minded opponent, and a very careful student of all the municipal government Acts. I venture to think, with very great respect to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), that he is more able to look after the interests of the users of electricity in London than a Birmingham Member of Parliament. I do not know what the hon. Member for Moseley would
think if the hon. Member for Greenwich tried to dictate what scheme Birmingham should have for the supply of electricity. I think he would be the first to resent it, and would come down with all his Irish eloquence to tell the hon. Member for Greenwich to mind his own business and stick to London.
It is a very curious thing that, when-even a London Bill dealing with electricity comes before this House, whether it be great or small, the hon. Member for Moseley always comes down to condemn municipal enterprise, and warn the House against its dangers. It is very curious, also, that he always seems to forget that, rightly or wrongly, Birmingham has a municipal supply, and, if I am well informed, it is a very successful municipal enterprise. I am going to say something which may be open to correction, and which I am very sorry to have to say, because I do not want to give Birmingham a free advertisement. I think that Birmingham has a much cheaper supply of electricity than London, and that it is much more regular, much more satisfactory and a much more efficient system. Why? Because they have one municipal authority supplying electricity, owning its own stations and running the whole show.

Mr. HANNON: It is run by capable business men.

Mr. HARRIS: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the hon. Member for Greenwich is not a capable business man? It is very noticeable that nearly all the London Members of Parliament are absent, though I see one or two hiding round the corner, but does the hon. Member for Moseley suggest that the London County Council, which has been dominated for 20 years by a Municipal Reform majority, is not as competent as the Birmingham City Council? After all, London is a very large and a very wealthy town, and, while I greatly admire Birmingham, I do not see why London should not produce men equally competent and equally capable of managing an electricity supply, especially as, to our distress, the majority at the present time are Conservatives. I have been their opponent, and have always recognised that Conservative Members may be lacking in imagination, but I do not think it has ever been suggested that
they are lacking in business capacity, which is the suggestion that the hon. Member for Moseley makes.

Mr. HANNON: I did not make that suggestion at all. I never cast any reflection at all on the business men of London.

Mr. HARRIS: It was an insinuation.

Mr. HANNON: I was only speaking of our own business men in Birmingham.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not think I shall quarrel with the hon. Member on that matter, but I suggest he insinuated that, while there are very capable business men in the municipality of Birmingham, somehow or other they were not so capable in London. I am glad that he withdraws that insinuation.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is necessary to dwell upon the point. The hon. Member merely put in an advertisement of his own people.

Mr. HANNON: I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. Member again insinuates that I cast some reflection on the people of London. That is not the case.

Mr. SPEAKER: It was a fair retort, but it is not necessary to follow it up.

Mr. HARRIS: I was somewhat surprised at the attitude of the Minister of Transport. The Ministry of Transport is a new Ministry, created for two specific purposes. The first was to look after the railways and the roads, but, when a question comes up in regard to railways, the Minister always assures us that he has no powers and can do nothing, and, while he expresses sympathy, he takes no action. The second and more important purpose is the organisation of the supply of electricity. After all the speeches of the Prime Minister throughout the country with regard to curing unemployment, doing everything for industry, and organising the supply of electricity, on the first proposal this Session that has to do with the question of electricity the Minister comes down and says he has no opinion whatsoever, and cannot give any lead, but leaves it entirely to the House.

Colonel ASHLEY: At present.

Mr. HARRIS: Let us think what it means. See how unfair it is to the com-
pany. We were told by the hon. Member for Moseley that a large amount of money is being raised, I think this morning, in the City of London․․

Mr. J. JONES: They promoted the company before they knew the Bill was going to pass.

Mr. HARRIS: This company is going to be involved in great expense. I have great sympathy with the lawyers. I understand there is great trade depression in the Temple, but now, no doubt, they will be kept busy for several weeks arguing the case of the company before the Committee. But is it fair to the shareholders? The Minister, in a few months' time, is going to turn down this Bill, and to let them waste their money in controversy before the Committee. Is it fair to the London Electricity Authority, which has only just been set up? It is on its trial; it is being watched carefully by the Commissioners and by the public at large. The Minister is going to allow it to fritter away its small funds on litigation before a committee. If he wishes this Bill to go through, if he means to give it his blessing, let him say so. If he thinks, as I believe he does in his heart of hearts, that it is a bad Bill, surely it would be more courageous and more fitting for him, as a Minister of the Crown, responsible for the organisation of the supply of electricity in this country, to give a lead to his party, who are looking to him alone for guidance. They are not here in their hundreds, but they will be coming along, when the Division Bell rings, to know what line they are to take, and the Minister will have to say that, although he is head of this great Department, and has Commissioners and experts to advise him, he has not made up his mind and does not know where he stands.
I do not think, with very great respect, that he is treating this House fairly, and is discharging properly his business as Minister of Transport. I have given a great number of years to this very difficult subject of the supply of electricity in London, and I venture to say it would be very unfair to prejudice the work of the new authority by giving especial powers and an especial position to one particular company. The hon. Member for Greenwich stated the case very well. We were persuaded to accept this scheme in order to give the Act of 1919 a chance. That Act divided the whole country into
areas. There were a certain number of very large areas, and for these areas an authority representing all the interested parties was set up, composed of local authorities and companies. Now this authority has only been in existence a few months, but I believe it has done already good work and it is in a position very shortly to put its scheme forward. On this authority are representatives of all companies and local authorities, not only in London but over a very large area of the home counties. One thing we are all agreed upon; all the technical experts are pretty well agreed that the larger the area of supply the more likely you are to get cheap electricity. If you are to cater for the small area it will be difficult to give cheap electricity. You must, in order to get a variety of demand and get your plant fully occupied over as much of the 24 hours as possible, have an area as large as possible and so have as varied a number of customers as can be obtained.
Now under this particular Bill we are dealing with the supply to one particular area, the area of these particular companies who are backing this Bill. I think that is a gross blunder. When the report of that wonderful Committee, about which we have heard so much, is made available, it will be found—I am going to prophesy, although that is a dangerous thing to do, as I have not read the Report, for the Minister has it and keeps it secret in a locked box, and we have yet to know its contents—that one of the things it is going to recommend is that the areas of supply should be as large as possible and that local interests should be ignored. It is very unfortunate that this Report is not before the House. We should be in a very much better position to judge of this Bill if we had the Report before the House. Not having the Report and with the new electricity authority only having been in existence four months, it would be a fatal and irretrievable blunder to allow this Bill even to go to a Second Reading, and for that reason I hope it may be rejected.

Mr. BALFOUR: I always think․․

Mr. MONTAGUE: On a point of Order. May I through you, Mr. Speaker, ask the hon. Member, who has just risen, whether or not he is interested
in the London Power Company directly or financially?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not for me to put that question to the hon. Member. He is entitled to address the House.

Mr. J. JONES: In addition to that, is it not a fact that this morning's Press contains a syllabus of application for the raising of capital for a company which has not got power yet until this Bill passes, and some hon. Members of this House have their names attached to it?

Mr. BALFOUR: It must always be rather objectionable to any hon. Member to have obtruded upon him or to obtrude upon any other hon. Member any question of a personal nature, but as far as I am concerned there is no secret as to my position. Firstly, I occupy a position in this House which I am proud to occupy as a Member duly elected by my constituents whom I must serve. Secondly, whatever my private interests may be, those interests must of necessity always be subservient to and be behind my interests to my constituents. I always think that in discussions on the Second Reading of Private Bills we are apt to go astray. As far as I am concerned, let it be accepted or assumed that I have a direct personal interest in the matter before the House, as, indeed, I am afraid I must have whenever you touch upon the subject of electricity in most portions of England, Scotland or Wales. Therefore, I will make hon. Members opposite a present of the fact, and they may judge me harshly if they like. I only ask that they will judge me merely by the truth of the statements that I make and the facts I put before them.
I am afraid we go astray when we are considering the merits of private Bills on Second Reading. I have always understood, rightly or wrongly, and I think rightly, that the Second Reading of a private citizen's Bill, if I may so term it—that is, of a Bill promoting private legislation and distinct from either a Government Bill or private Member's Bill proposing public legisation—corresponds more or less to the First Reading of a Government Bill. When we pass a Private Bill through this House, it has then really to have what is more or less its Second Reading stage upstairs, where the facts which are alleged by hon.
Gentlemen opposite and those which are stated by the promoters of the Bill, are heard and are placed before the Committee by counsel on either side, and the first thing the Committee has to do is to pass the Preamble through. I would ask the house to try to get back to a proper sense of proportion in regard to these Private Bills. In a few days or perhaps a week or two a Private Bill promoted by a corporation, which is directly in conflict with and opposed to my personal interests, will be brought before this House. I shall on that occasion make exactly the same speech I am making now. I have on previous occasions—as I think it is within the recollection of the House—made exactly the same speech I am making now. It will be a speech asking this House to give a Second Reading to a Bill connected with the subject of electricity, to which I am utterly opposed, and which I wish to see rejected, for the simple reason that it is quite impossible, with the small numbers of Members present, to deal with the highly technical matters involved. I will ask hon. Members not to break down the Private Bill procedure of this House, but to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Having said that, I confess I was rather surprised at what fell from the lips of the Minister. He mentioned that this Bill, after it comes down from Committee, might have inserted in it provisions which would still leave the company appealing to this House in the position of being dependent on the will of a Department as to whether there will be put into effect the decrees of this House or not. I think that is a very dangerous policy. We should never deprive the private citizens of this country of the right of petitioning this House, as in the old days they petitioned the Crown, and having made the petition and proved their case and had specific rights conferred by Parliament, let them be made dependent on a Department for the technical protection which is due to the public. I sincerely hope and trust that this House will always stand for protecting the rights and liberties of citizens in this country.
There is only one other point, and I apologise to the House for having to obtrude it on its attention. Reference has been made to money which is being raised for the purposes of the company mentioned in this Bill. I think I can say definitely to hon. Gentlemen opposite,
who have quite rightly and properly raised this question, that the whole of that sum of money, and more than that sum of money, is required for the purposes of these 10 companies, in order to link them together and in order to close down inefficient ones and put plant in those which are most efficient, long before the stage is reached when the powers conferred by this Bill will be in working order.
The whole of that money is for instant and immediate use under the powers which the companies already possess and has not the remotest relation to the Bill, except that when and if a station is erected under the powers sought in this Bill they will have already in advance unified the whole generation and distribution of that vast area served by these 10 companies so as indeed to bring nearer and closer to realisation the provision of a cheap and abundant supply of electricity in these areas. I conclude with a word that should always be uttered in connection with Private Bills, that, unless indeed there is some very distinct cleavage on matters of principle, we should give them Second Readings whether we like them or dislike them, whether we are in favour of them or opposed to them, in order that their merits may be properly explored upstairs, where the whole merits of the case are probed, and after there has been a proper hearing of both sides of the case upstairs it might be quite right and proper to throw the Bill out on Third Reading.

Captain WALLACE: I had not in tended to take up the time of the House until the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) commented upon the lack of Conservative Members for London or thereabouts addressing the House. A Conservative Member for London, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume), got up and put the case very effectively. I was again roused to action by the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). I came into the House to-night with an entirely open mind on the subject of this Bill, which affects my constituency as it does many others. I have heard the very potent arguments put forward by the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill and by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who is promoting it, and I came to the conclusion that
there were two really essential points to be decided before one who is not a technical expert could cast his vote rightly. The first was, what was the attitude of the Minister of Transport? The Bill would appear, prima facie, to cut across the scheme of the Joint Electricity Authority and to be premature in view of the proposals we are expecting from the Government. I was quite prepared to hear the Minister oppose the Bill. He made, however, what I hope he will not resent my describing as a somewhat colourless criticism. I could not help feeling that it was merely a question of damning with faint praise. I was, therefore, driven to the conclusion that the Minister, who, presumably, knows more about it than anyone else, was not particularly favourable to the Bill.
The hon. Member for Moseley made one very important point when he referred to the very large demands that are apparently to be made by the Southern Railway Company in the near future upon this London Power Company, and if it was a fact that the company, without the help of the new proposed station, could not supply the current for these electric trains within the time they would be wanted, that would be a very strong argument in favour at any rate of giving the Bill a Second Reading. But if that had been the case, surely the Minister would have said something about it, because after all he is more concerned than anyone else if the Southern electric trains break down. I was bound also to attach very considerable importance to the weighty speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich. I feel reluctant at having to disregard the arguments of the hon. Member who has just sat down. He is a next-door neighbour of mine, and I was sorry for him in view of the insinuations made from the opposite benches. I agree in principle that it is essential that private Bills of this kind should have a Second Reading but, as the hon. Member for Limehouse said, it is obvious that if we give the Bill a Second Reading and send it to a Committee, those who are opposing it will be involved in very considerable expense, and in these days that is the thing to be considered. I was particularly anxious not to give a silent vote, and I feel bound to say I shall have to oppose the Bill.

Mr. J. JONES: Some of the arguments I have heard advanced to-night in favour of the Bill remind me of the remark made by Blücher when he visited London after the Battle of Waterloo, "What a magnificent city to sack!" [Interruption.] It does not matter who he was. He was a German anyhow, with all the possibilities of a Junker. We have some of them here to-night. I represent a district where we have one of the cheapest and greatest electrical supplies in the country. We have invested nearly £2,000,000 of the people's money in a part of Greater London. Generally, when hon. Members talk about London they simply mean the County Council area. They do not seem to recognise that, although we are not in London, we are of London. Places like Ilford, West Ham, Tottenham, Walthamstow, and all the other outer areas of London, are part and parcel of those who are going to be sacrificed. In the papers this morning we have a huge request for £3,000,000 of capital so far as this company is concerned, probably believing their friends in the House of Commons will rally to their assistance and carry this Bill. If it is not carried, will they raise the £3,000,000? [HON. MEMBERS: "It is done"] Oh, they have got it on the strength of having a Tory Government in power. Then the Minister of Transport does not bless the baby, but he is carrying it. The baby has to be adopted by someone and I do not know who will call himself Dr. Barnardo, but they have the crib ready and the people of London are going to be exploited.
This company is going to supply the whole of the London area. Even the Southern Railway is going to be provided for. The Southern Railway goes down to the very southern part of England, and this company is going to have the possibility of exploiting the whole of the South of England, including London, for their own purposes. Give me a private company in the London area that provides electricity for power, heating or lighting as cheaply as we do in West Ham. The hon. Member opposite is associated with this company. Will he give me the name of one that provides the people with this necessary means of living as cheaply as municipal authorities do? Although we are paying higher wages, working our men shorter hours, and giving them better conditions
generally, we are beating them all the way through. Even in Birmingham, they cannot supply electricity as we are doing in the East End of London.
What is the reason for this Bill? Here is a great new power, with great possibilities, and these people who are promoting this Bill say, "Let us increase our powers before the municipalities are too powerful. They are doing all that we would like to do." All that we are asking is for a fair deal. This company is going to get powers that no other company in the country possesses. It is to have the power, practically, to cut across other people's property. If we were to suggest in West Ham that we should have the right to cut across the mains of the Charing Cross Electricity Supply Company, what would they say to us? The hon. Member opposite would raise a row in this House about it. Yet he is fathering a Bill which is going to give this Company an opportunity of cutting right across our position, although we have spent nearly £2,000,000 of the money of our people for the purpose of developing our electricity supply.
Hon. Members opposite know that their own friends in the Borough of West Ham are opposed to this Bill that they are satisfied with the service they are getting, with the power they are receiving, and the light and heat they are getting from our local authorities, at a rate lower than any company can give it. I am glad that the hon. Member opposite has admitted that he is interested in certain companies. I am interested in the public. Most of my constituents cannot afford to use electricity. This Bill cuts directly across all the efforts that we have made. We have been pioneers in electrical development. In the outer area of London we have been able to give the people services that they never previously received, and opportunities that they never before enjoyed. This Bill is to cut across the rights of municipalities. I am very sorry to learn that the Minister of Transport, who is mainly responsible for looking after these public affairs, cannot give a lead to the House.
This is a Bill purely for private purposes, and, as far as that is concerned, we are opposing it. All the local authorities concerned are opposing it. The leader of the Municipal Reformers in the London County Council, the hon. Member
for Greenwich (Sir G. Hume), who is always recognised as a man who would not give a view which was not honest—we all agree with that—has given his personal opinion and his knowledge of the situation as far as London is concerned. That view bears out the view of all the local authorities. It is not a question of West Ham or Poplar, which are Labour boroughs; it is a question affecting all the municipal authorities in London. They are all opposed to this Bill, because they believe it is an attack upon them in their efforts for the service of the people. A Bill of this character, having the united opposition of Labour and Conservative boroughs, ought not to get a Second Reading, and I support its rejection.

Mr. BROMLEY: I rise to make an appeal to the House to recognise its responsibility to the nation as a whole. Years ago, the railway service was permitted to be exploited by private capital. There are very few people who are really interested in the economies of the nation to-day who would not, if the railways were starting afresh to-day, prefer by far that they should be a national asset than that they should be developed in the higgledy-piggledy manner that they have been under private enterprise, for which everyone is paying to-day, the consumer, the travelling public and the railway employes, because we are paying on capital which was wasted and on the wild cat schemes of opposition in the early days.
The next great national development will be on the lines of electricity. Electrical development is in its infancy. We are starting on something which will eventually almost supersede steam on railways, and which will have a tremendous effect on the national life, and I suggest that we in this House, apart altogether from individual opinion and the desire which I fear will be present in the minds of many hon. Members opposite to support private enterprise, should consider our duty to the nation as a whole when a Private Bill of this description comes forward asking for a monopoly of what will be an exceedingly important service in the near future. We should think of our duty to the nation.
This House should not lightly give a Second Reading to a Bill which will destroy the efforts of municipalities who
are establishing very fine and cheap electric services. By passing this Bill we are handing over the exploitation of electricity to private capital. If we do that, people will regret it in a few years, just as the nation has regretted for many years that our railways have been in the hands of private exploiters. It has been said very frequently, in answer to arguments by hon. Members on these benches, that private enterprise has to step in, and that we have been depending upon private exploitation and private capital for developments. That cannot be said in this case. Here is a very plain exhibition of the London boroughs trying to fend for themselves and to develop very efficient electrical schemes, with their workpeople well paid. I suggest that before cutting across that development, before handing over the exploitation of the next great vital need of the nation to private enterprise, it is the serious duty of this House to consider the interests of the nation whole, and in all cases where that is predominant in our minds, private capitalist interests should have very scant consideration.

Mr. VIANT: In rising to support the rejection of the Bill, I do so at the request of the local authority in my constituency. I would inform the House that that local authority has not a Labour majority but a Conservative majority, and they view this Bill as a Bill which seeks to jump the claims of the Joint Authority in London. They feel that the London Power Company, being composed of companies represented on the Joint Authority, is not playing quite a straight game. They occupied seats upon the Joint Authority, and were in a position to become aware of the plans that were being prepared by that Joint Authority. There has been shown precisely the same amount of enthusiasm in jumping the claims of the Joint Authority as was shown by the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) when speaking this evening. He waxed eloquent and enthusiastic in his claims for this private authority. When he was speaking he invariably used the word "we," indicating that he was speaking for the company concerned.

Mr. HANNON: I was speaking for private enterprise.

Mr. VIANT: That is so. You were speaking for private enterprise; you were speaking as "we," which was the private interest represented. The same enthusiasm that was shown by the hon. Member this evening had apparently been shown by those who desired to subscribe to the shares of this company, for we have been informed to-day that the capital has been subscribed four times over. The enthusiasm that has been shown in this respect is indicative of the enthusiasm of this company to queer the pitch for municipal enterprise. One would have thought that at least the Minister in charge of the House at the moment, knowing the scheme that the Government has in view for developing electricity throughout the country, would have been prepared to advise the House to reject the Bill. The local authority for whom I am speaking were under the impression that the Bill would be rejected; they hoped that further vested interests would not be created and ultimately have to be bought out, if progress was to be made in the creation of a concentrated supply in the areas concerned. On those grounds alone the House ought to reject the Bill. Otherwise we shall create further chaos, instead of order, in the supply of electricity. I hope the House will be prepared to face the issue and leave the path clear in order that the Government's schemes, which are to be produced, will not be blocked by schemes of this kind.

Mr. THURTLE: I want to clear up a point with reference to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). While he was speaking, I interrupted him to suggest that he was speaking on behalf of the companies. If there is any misunderstanding I want to assure him that he himself is responsible for it, because he used these expressions, "we have had this money subscribed," "we could not wait," "we have our own scheme ready." Therefore, I naturally assumed that he was speaking on behalf of the Company.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 110; Noes, 137.

Division No. 37.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Alexander. A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Palin, John Henry


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Baker, Walter
Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Harris, Percy A.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Scurr, John


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Briant. Frank
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Clowes, S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stephen, Campbell


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sutton, J. E.


Connolly, M.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Taylor, R. A.


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kenyon, Barnet
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lansbury, George
Thurtle, E.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Day, Colonel Harry
Lee, F.
Townend, A. E.


Duncan, C.
Livingstone, A. M.
Varley, Frank B.


Dunnico, H.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards. C. (Monmouth. Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
MacLaren, Andrew
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
March, S.
Whiteley, W.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenall, T.
Montague, Frederick
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morris, R. H.
Wright, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Naylor, T. E.



Grundy, T. W.
Oliver, George Harold
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Owen, Major G.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Warne.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Campbell, E. T.


Albery, Irving James
Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brass, Captain W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool. W. Derby)
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Briggs, J. Harold
Clarry, Reginald George


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Atholl, Duchess of
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Cope, Major William


Balniel, Lord
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Couper, J. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)


Berry, Sir George
Buckingham, Sir H.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Betterton, Henry B.
Bullock, Captain M.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rentoul, G. S.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hume, Sir G. H.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Ropner, Major L.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hurst, Gerald B.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dixey, A. C.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Elliot, Captain Walter E.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Elveden, Viscount
Jacob, A. E.
Sandon, Lord


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sassoon, Sir Phillip Albert Gustave D.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Fermoy, Lord
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Fielden, E. B.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Skelton, A. N.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Nevllie W.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lamb, J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Ganzoni, Sir John
Loder, J. de V.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Gates, Percy
Looker, Herbert William
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Gee, Captain R.
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Storry-Deans, R.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Major A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Gower, Sir Robert
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Grace, John
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Macquisten, F. A.
Templeton, W. P.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Gretton, Colonel John
Margesson, Captain D.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Grotrian, H. Brent
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Meller, R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Merriman, F. B.
Vanghan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Waddington, R.


Hammersley, S. S.
Moles, Thomas
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Harland, A.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hartington, Marquess of
Murchison, C. K.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Haslam, Henry C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wells, S. R.


Hawke, John Anthony
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dalrymple


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Oakley, T.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Penny, Frederick George
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichffield)


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hills, Major John Waller
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Hilton, Cecil
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Withers, John James


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Philipson, Mabel
Womersley, W. J.


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Raine, W.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Holland, Sir Arthur
Ramsden, E.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Holt, Captain H. P.
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Notwich)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)



Hopkins, J. W. W.
Remer, J. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Remnant, Sir James
Major Hennessy and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 38.]
AYES.
[10.2 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Philipson, Mabel


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Balniel, Lord
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Warford)
Remer, J. R.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Remnant, Sir James


Briggs, J. Harold
Hilton, Cecil
Rentoul, G. S.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Ropner, Major L.


Campbell, E. T.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Jacob, A. E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Couper, J. B.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Savery, S. S.


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Derwick)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lamb, J. Q.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Storry-Deans, R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Looker, Herbert William
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Dixey, A. C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major A.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Elveden, Viscount
Malone, Major P. B.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Merriman, F. B.
Waddington, R.


Fermoy, Lord
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fielden, E. B.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Watts, Dr. T.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Murchison, C. K.
Wells, S. R.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gates, Percy
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gee, Captain R.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G. (Ptrsf'ld.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Oakley, T.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Owen, Major G.



Gretton, Colonel John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Mr. Hannon and Mr. Grotrian.


Hartington, Marquess of
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)





NOES.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Ammon, Charles George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.


Baker, Walter
Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick


Barnes, A.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)
Morris, R. H.


Barr, J.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Batey, Joseph
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold


Brass, Captain W.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Palin, John Henry


Bromfield, William
Hardie, George D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromley, J.
Harney, E. A.
Penny, Frederick George


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harris, Percy A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Buchanan, G.
Hayes, John Henry
Potts, John S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Charleton, H. C.
Herbert, Dennis, (Hertford, Watford)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Shepperson, E. W.


Clowes, S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cluse, W. S.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Connolly, M.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Crawfurd, H. E.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stephen, Campbell


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Taylor, R. A.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Thomas Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Duncan, C.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dunnico, H.
Kennedy, T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lawson, John James
Townend, A. E.


Fenby, T. D.
Lee, F.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Lindley, F. w.
Varley, Frank B.


Gillett, George M.
Lowth, T.
Viant, S. P.


Gosling, Harry
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Graham, Rt. Hon- Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mackinder, W.
Wallhead, Richard C


Greenall, T.
MacLaren, Andrew
Warne, G. H.




Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Wright, W.


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)



Welsh, J. C.
Windsor. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Westwood, J.
Wise, Sir Fredric
Major Attlee and Sir George Hume.


Whiteley, W.
Womersley, W. J.

Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

TRADE FACILITIES [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(a) to amend the Trade Facilities Acts, 1921 to 1925—

(i) by increasing from seventy million pounds to seventy-five million pounds the limit on the aggregate capital amount of the loans in respect of which guarantees under those Acts may be given; and
(ii) by extending by one year the period within which such guarantees may be given;
(b) to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1924, by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, the period within which new guarantees under those Acts may be given, and by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the period during which guarantees under those Acts may remain in force."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): This Resolution is the foundation for a Bill with which hon. Members with previous Parliamentary experience will be fairly familiar. The Bill to be founded on this Resolution will be necessary because the existing Act expires at the end of the present financial year, that is at the end of next month, and because the maximum sum which can be guaranteed under that expiring Act is too near exhaustion to last through another year if the policy of this legislation is to be continued at all. Up to the end of last
year, 31st December, 1925, the actual amount that had been guaranteed was £63,169,741, and it is estimated that by the end of the present financial year £65,000,000 will have been guaranteed in the same way. As the amount authorised by the Act of last year was £70,000,000, the proposal now is to continue, as has previously been done, the Act for another year and to raise the maximum to £75,000,000, which means, if the estimates prove accurate, as I have no reason to doubt they will, that there will be a sum of £10,000,000 which can be used for these guarantees. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to remind hon. Members of the principles embodied in the Trade Facilities Act, but I will certainly only do so very shortly, because I expect most hon. Members are fairly familiar with them. There are two principles laid down in the Act. The first is that the Treasury should have power to guarantee loans to be raised when they are satisfied that the proceeds are to be applied towards carrying out of any capital undertakings or the purchase of materials manufactured or produced in the United Kingdom and required for the purpose of the undertaking. That is the first condition.
The second condition is really the most important, because it is the origin of the whole of this legislation. The second condition is that the loan is calculated to provide employment in the United Kingdom. When this legislation was initiated in 1921, an Amendment was put into the original Act which, of course, has governed the procedure ever since, by which the guarantees are only given when the Treasury has been in consultation with the Advisory Committee for that purpose. I want to emphasise the position which that Advisory Committee holds, because it is not quite fully expressed in the Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1921, in the course of the Debate explained what the position of the Advisory Committee would be. He said the Treasury would accept the Committee's recommendations both as regards the loans to be guaranteed and the terms and conditions of such guarantees. And he went on to use this language:
 The Treasury will not appear in the picture at all. The Committee will have full control ….. The Treasury will not
seek to exercise a discrimination between one scheme and another, but will leave it entirely for the Committee to decide.
That was in 1921, when the first Bill was being discussed in this House. That was the language used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in explaining the procedure it was intended to follow. That procedure, I maintain, has been followed from that time until now, and I suggest to the Committee that it is very important that that procedure should be followed. I do not think anyone will suggest, if this system is to be pursued at all, if the national credit is to be used for giving guarantees for the purpose of encouraging employment, that the actual discrimination as to the undertakings to be so assisted should be exercised by anybody except a purely impartial and non-political body. I am now speaking of the general principle which should be followed, and I submit that it is followed.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether any discrimination is being exercised by the Government or by the Treasury, whether any pressure is being brought to bear by the Government or the Treasury on the Advisory Committee?

Mr. CONNOLLY: May I ask also which Committee is now acting? The first Committee was set up under the Board of Trade and the second Committee under the Treasury. Which Committee is now acting?

Mr. McNEILL: It is a Committee of three members, and I submit that what ever difference of opinion there may be—

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question as to whether the Government have brought any political pressure to bear on the Advisory Committee?

Mr. McNEILL: So far as I can answer, I should say there has been practically none.

Mr. TAYLOR: Arising out of that, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that this Committee have refused applications in connection with Anglo-Russian trade?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not think that is quite relevant to my present argument, and as the discrimination should rest with
the Committee and not with the Government or with the House of Commons, I should be violating that principle if I endeavoured to answer the question. A question like that should be addressed to the Committee. I can well understand the difference of opinion there would have been from the outset as to the principle of this legislation, but I do not think there can be any reasonable doubt that it has had a substantial effect in the way of producing employment and mitigating—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—Hon. Members shake their heads. I do not know whether their information is better than mine, but it is my submission—I will not put the case too high—that it has had a substantial effect in preventing the total volume of unemployment being higher than it has been. I quite agree that it is impossible to estimate with any sort of approach to accuracy how far that effect has gone, because the action and operation of the Act are not traceable directly—

It being a quarter past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

TRADE FACILITIES [MONEY].

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That it is expedient—

(a) to amend the Trade Facilities Act, 1921 to 1925—

(i) by increasing from seventy million pounds to seventy-five million pounds the limit on the aggregate capital amount of the loans in respect of which guarantees under those Acts may be given; and
(ii) by extending by one year the period within which such guarantees may be given;
(b) to amend the Overseas Trade Acts, 1920 to 1924, by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, the period within which new guarantees under those Acts may be given, and by extending to the eighth day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-three, the period during which guarantees under those Acts may remain in force."

Question again proposed.

Mr. McNEILL: When the proceedings were interrupted for the Private Bill I was saying that the Trade Facilities Act has had a substantial effect in preventing the volume of unemployment being greater than it has been, and that the Act has been of substantial use in promoting unemployment. It is, of course, impossible to give anything like an accurate estimate as to how far it has gone because its effects are not actually direct, but indirect. The ordinary contract provides that all the plant, machinery and materials, required in connection with the working of the undertaking, shall be purchased in Great Britain at the lowest prices under contracts requiring the contractor to certify on his own behalf and on behalf of the sub-contractors, that the
plant, machinery or materials supplied is wholly of British manufacture. Any breach of this undertaking is to be reported to the Treasury. That in itself promotes an amount of employment by making a demand for these materials, but that amount of employment it is impossible to estimate. Last year my predecessor in this office stated in the House that the estimate of the advisory committee was that at least 100,000 men were in employment who would not have been in employment but for the existence of this Act, and that, I think, remains true at the present time. There are on the Paper one or two Amendments to the Resolution on which I shall have a word to say after I have heard what is said in their support, and I will not do more by way of anticipation now than to say that the first of these Amendments appears to me to be unnecessary.

The CHAIRMAN: I think I might save time if I say now that the first and fourth Amendments are not in order.

Mr. McNEILL: I am much obliged for the information. With regard to those in order, it will probably be more convenient if I wait to hear what is said in their support and deal with them in that way.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: I rise merely to put a point of Order and to ask your ruling for the guidance of the Committee. I think the Committee will agree that it might be better if we had a short discussion on the broad principle of this legislation, and if you approve I would suggest that it would be much more convenient to take that course and then proceed afterwards to specific Amendments.

The CHAIRMAN: I think that would be as well. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to speak now, there is no reason why he should not do so without moving his Amendment.

Mr. GRAHAM: I did not rise to say anything, personally, at this stage of the Debate. I wanted to safeguard a general discussion.

Mr. GILLETT: There was one statement made by the right hon. Gentleman in moving this Resolution which greatly surprised many of us on this side of the Committee. It was to the effect that it was left to the discretion of the Committee as to whether trade was done with Russia or not. I always understood that the Government had put an embargo on the Committee with respect to any suggestion of trade with Russia, and that any such suggestion never came before the Advisory Committee or the Export Credits Committee for them to decide or to make any recommendation upon.
Speaking as a member of the Export Credits Committee I have no recollection of any proposal coming before the Committee suggesting that trade should be done with that part of Russia which is under the control of the Soviet Government. I confess my duty here often prevents me from attending the Committee but during my term of membership I do not remember such a proposal, and my impression is that the Exports Credits Committee's opinion was never definitely asked on the question of the advisability of carrying on trade with Russia. I thought that matter had been decided by the Government, and that any application which came forward would be returned automatically by the officials of the Committee with the information that it could not be considered. I wish to make my position clear. I am not suggesting for a moment that the view of the Government in regard to trade with Russia is not the view of the majority of my colleagues on the Committee, but it seems to me that the position of the Committee should be made quite plain; that there should be no misunderstanding that this is a Government policy determined upon by the Government, and that, in this matter, the Advisory Committee have no say, and have not expressed, at any rate recently, any definite opinion.

Mr. McNEILL: As the hon. Member says he is replying to my statement, may I say that I was speaking of the Advisory Committee under the Trade Facilities Act which is a body perfectly distinct from the Export Credits Committee. I was not dealing with export credits at all. As a matter of fact I believe that my statement applies equally to both Committees, but the Export Credits Committee does not strictly come within my province, and my
hon. Friend the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will deal with that part of the Resolution.

Mr. GILLETT: I am rather surprised at the reply, because in all probability the Export Credits Committee would be the Committee most concerned with the question of trade with Russia. I am willing to leave that point for the moment, but I shall be interested to hear from the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department as representing the Export Credits Committee whether my interpretation or that of the Financial Secretary, is the correct one. If those of us who hold views different from the views of the Government on this question, are given to understand that a Committee of which we are Members is responsible for this policy, then of course it gives us the opportunity of raising the whole question at the Committee. I always understood however it was not a matter for discussion by the Committee because it had been settled, and the policy had been laid down by the Government.
Passing from that question of procedure to the general question of the Trade Facilities Act, I suggest that this Measure which was started with the intention of helping in a special emergency, due to unemployment, is now developing on a scale far greater than anything that was imagined when the Government of that day first brought it into existence. This is a scheme which cannot be called Socialism, and cannot be called private enterprise. It is distasteful, I am told, to extreme Socialists, and distasteful also to strong supporters of private enterprise in the pure and unadulterated form. Many of us recognise, however, that it may be of service, and on both sides, whatever our views may be, we have sunk individual feelings in order to see if the scheme could be made to help employment.
It has been noticed in the past year that there have been certain developments in connection with the Trade Facilities Act. Some things we were not doing a year ago are now being done. Questions put to Ministers in the last year have elicited the fact that this Committee has a wide scope in regard to the work it has undertaken, and during the last six months we have seen more money being lent for such purposes as the replacemet of machinery than I believe has been
done for some time. About nine months ago there was an hon. Member not now in the House who questioned the Government once or twice as to whether grants could not be made to help those industries that are suffering at the present time, not in regard to new trade, but in regard to the replacement of machinery and so forth.
The reason why I put down the Amendment in my name which has been ruled out of order was because of a certain amount of uncertainty in regard to the powers of the Trade Facilities Committee. We wanted to make certain whether the money could be used to help suffering industries in the way in which the shipbuilding industry, the steel industry, the iron industry, and other industries of that kind are suffering, and I have understood, from looking at the answers, that it is obvious that something could be done on those lines. There is one point I should like to put to the Minister, and that is in regard to the question of this money being used for the purchase of land. His predecessor in office, in answer to a question last July, stated that money could not be given for the purchase of land.
Technically, I can see the point that to buy land does not give any immediate employment in one sense, but, on the other hand, in the larger sense, if you have a factory and want to extend it, and if you want capital with which to buy land and put up fresh buildings and more machinery, I cannot see the difference between using this money to buy the land and using it to put up the machinery or buildings on the land. On the question of machinery, I feel satisfied, from the answer I received from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, in which he stated that at least £200,000 had been spent in the replacement of machinery, that at any rate what was rather a doubtful question a year ago is now no longer so, and that the money can be spent on the replacement of machinery.
I now come to the main point that I wish to urge on the Minister. I am not criticising the policy of the Government, but I want to point out the tremendous changes in the Government's policy in using public credit to help private enterprise in various forms as compared with the pre-War policy of any Government.
Since the War we have had public credit being used to help the Co-operative Society, we now have an intimation from the Government of some idea of the use of public credit in order to help the farming industry, and we have the Trade Facilities Committee helping the manufacturers. All these schemes have been started at different times, and there is never careful consideration given to the whole question as to what line is being followed or the main principles that should guide the Government in this matter. If the Committee were to analyse the figures in connection with the loans that have been granted by the Trade Facilities Committee during the last nine months of the previous year, it would find that something like £18,000,000 has been recommended by the Committee. Out of that amount, nearly £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 has been expended on shipping, about £2,000,000 in connection with coal mines, about £2,000,000 has been used abroad, £500,000 in the Colonies or the Sudan, and £1,500,000 has been used for sugar-beet. The questions that come before me, on looking at those figures, are: How far are we really thinking out what we want to do with this money, or does a request come from a certain firm before the Committee, and is that request thought of simply and solely according to its own merits and no consideration given to the larger questions that may be connected with the approval or refusal of the request made?
Of the sum of £18,000,000 to which I have referred, I have given particulars of nearly £12,000,000. You find' that of that £18,000,000, one-third has been spent on shipping. It is quite true that there is hardly an industry in this country today that is more in need of help, but, on the other hand, one can well understand the criticism that has been aroused amongst certain interests in shipping, when they find that new ships are being built at the very time when they are complaining that the ships in existence cannot get enough work to do. Some hon. Members may have noticed the report recently presented by the Shipping Federation, in which, referring to last year, they speak about the depression in the shipping industry having continued, and they practically intimate that it is no better than it was at the commencement of last year.
Then I should like to ask the Minister whether, when a recommendation is made that £2,000,000 be granted for the coal industry in Kent, that has been thought out in connection with the fact that at the present time this country is spending a large sum of money on the coal industry. I do not know how soon these coal mines in Kent will come to the producing stage. Of course the industry there is quite in its infancy, and I presume it will take some time before the coal appears. But provided the coal is there, as is to be hoped, I should like to know how far the Committee who are considering this are really thinking out the whole coal problem. The Minister said that the matter must be left entirely in the hands of the Committee, but, personally, I do not agree with him. I question very much whether there are not some questions which ought not to be left in the hands of the Committee. I am not in any way criticising the composition of the Committee, or the men upon it, but you can ask a Committee of this sort whether, looked at from the narrow business standpoint, the recommendation in advance is a sound one. This Kent proposition may be absolutely sound, looked at from itself and quite apart from any other question, but it does seem to me—and here I disagree with the Minister—that the Minister must at some time have a say in a matter of this kind.
There is the larger question of shipping, and as to whether State guarantees can be continued to be used to help build more ships, I think that has to be put against the general need of shipping at the present time. Then the sugar-beet industry is being assisted to the extent of about £1,500,000 guaranteed by the State. The sugar-beet industry is receiving a great deal of support from the State, and, certainly, if it cannot make good with the help it is getting in its two-fold capacity from the State, then I think the industry must be deemed an utter failure in this country. I do want to put before the Minister that there are larger questions. I am not at all sure whether, if we are going on with this use of public credit, the composition of the Committee ought not to be much larger, or that a wider range of views should not be represented upon that Committee, and I think the Minister certainly ought to recognise that, on certain broad lines, the Government must express their opinion on certain ques-
tions. I agree—we all agree that we think the policy pursued by these committees, or the Government, in regard to Russia is a mistake. Personally, I think that the Government ought to have expressed its view on many other questions besides that of Russia. In this matter, from the point of view of State credit, you cannot leave it to independent committees to recommend what they like. You cannot leave the matter entirely in their hands.
There is one other thing which is creating a certain amount of uneasiness. That is the fact, as has been noticed, that some of these guarantees have been given to firms of very high standing, firms which I have not the slightest doubt that, if they wanted to get their money on the London money market, would not have got it as cheap as by means of the Government guarantee, but they certainly would easily be able to get it. There are some questions in regard to one or two of these loans that some of us would like to put, and that have been mentioned; questions that will possibly occur to the mind of the Minister as to why, for instance, it was thought needful that firms of this standing should be helped, and favoured by being allowed to have a State guarantee. There are one or two other points I should like to mention before I sit down. One is as to why it is we do not find that more has been done in connection with Indian trade. This matter, I believe, has been raised in the House before. Those hon. Members who remember the beginning of these Committees will remember that help was not allowed to be given to India on account of the conditions in India. They had a great many goods at that time, and there was a condition of frozen credit which made it undesirable that more trade should be carried on. Some of us have been greatly surprised that we did not see more done in helping trade between this country and India by the Trade Facilities Act. I only raise the matter, and I should be glad to know what the Minister thinks, and as to why that help has not been given.
There was another suggestion made in this House some time ago which I think is well worthy of consideration; that was that there ought to be research work. That is, that instead of a Committee waiting to receive applications from the public, from here, or there, that there
should be in the Government Department—perhaps the Minister can assure me that there is at the present?—a definite policy of trying to find work that it would be desirable to have, that there should be a Committee, or officials connected with the Committee, who should definitely lay out the best way in which this money can be used instead of waiting until—shall I say Providence?—brings applications in some form or other. I have wondered whether in the matter of the smaller municipalities the Minister was quite satisfied that the local loans and other Government assistance that has been given to these is all that is required. Many of us would much sooner see the State guarantee given to a municipality than to private enterprise. My right hon. Friend has mentioned the larger question that how far the State ought to be represented, and I do not intend to touch upon that point; but what I wish to lay special stress upon is this question of the composition of the Committee. I hope the Minister will consider whether the enlargement of the Committee would not be a wise move to make. Also I hope the Government will consider the policy of the Committees instead of leaving the whole question to drift. There is the State credit, and a great social power that we now use and that we never saw before the War. Instead of allowing the matter to drift, ought we not rather to try to divert it into channels where we shall see it used for the best possible purposes?

Sir FREDRIC WISE: I agree with a great deal that the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett) has said, and especially in regard to the credits which he mentioned. This is practically a hardy annual. The Committee would do well to picture the position when this Act came into force in 1921, and note how different is the picture that we see to-day. In 1921 5 per cent. War Loan was standing at 83 and yielding 6 per cent., whereas at the present time one may say that Government credit is on a 4¼ per cent. basis. This was an emergency Measure, and I feel that we have got past emergency measures. The genesis of this scheme was unemployment. I am sure Members on every side of the House are anxious to do what they can to assist the unemployed, but I am sure this Bill and
these advances must affect genuine trade; until we get back to genuine trade, and do away with palliatives, I feel confident that in the long run it does not really benefit the unemployed.
I have nothing to say against the Advisory Committee. I know some of them, and they are most capable business men who give their time, I think, in a voluntary capacity; but last year when I spoke on this Measure I suggested that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should join that Committee, and I am disappointed to hear him say that the Treasury have no control over the Committee. The Treasury ought to have control over all the taxpayers' money, and I appeal to the Financial Secretary to consider the possibility of going on this Committee. The amount is now to be raised to £75,000,000. It is a large amount. I think the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) would like to see it doubled. I think I remember reading an article of his not very long ago in which he mentioned a sum of £150,000,000. These amounts can only come out of one pocket, and that is savings, and the more we increase our credit in that way the more difficult it is to carry out our other Government maturities.
It is really a subsidy. Some of the issues that have been made are hardly carried out in a businesslike way and hardly do credit to the Committee. Issues have been made to mines, to cottages, to docks, shipping, collieries, a foreign Government, tin, sugar, electricity in Poland, electricity in Greece, a bacon factory, quarries, brickyards, etc. The hon. Member for Finsbury spoke of the large amount which is to be guaranteed to Messrs. Pearson and Dorman Long. Well, it is a large amount, even for a big coal area. I would like to know from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether this is a first charge on this large property. What is the security? I rather thought that one of the troubles in all the coalfields at the present time was that there are too many coalfields, yet here we have another one being developed with Government credit, and I do indeed criticise it.
With regard to shipping and shipbuilding two years ago I had an Amendment down in regard to this subject, and possibly the Committee may remember a Resolution passed by the Shipowners'
Parliamentary Committee on 20th March, 1924:
It was unanimously resolved that in the opinion of this Committee, representative of the whole of the shipping industry of the United Kingdom, it is not desirable that the application of the Trade Facilities Act to shipbuilding be continued, and that therefore its continuance be not supported by the shipping industry.
I wonder if the Financial Secretary took any notice of that. I do not know that he is taking very much notice of me.

Mr. McNEILL: I can assure my hon. Friend that he is quite mistaken.

Sir F. WISE: I am very pleased to hear it. A further meeting was held on 17th December, 1925, of the Council of the Chamber of Shipping, and they suggested to the Financial Secretary that if any loan was made to shipping and shipbuilding companies, the representatives of shipping should be consulted on that particular matter. I do not know whether that has been considered, but it is a very important point. There was a further guarantee recently given to a company called the Silver Lines, and Messrs. Holt and Company wrote a letter to the "Times" showing the position and criticisms were made in reference to the Government giving credit to a company of that sort. There was an important banquet held last Friday where the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) became President of the Chamber of Shipping, and I am sorry he is not in his place. I was not at the banquet myself, but the speech of the right hon. Member read very well. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea specially referred to the Trade Facilities Act, and perhaps I may be allowed to read just a few lines from his speech. He said:
The Trade Facilities Act, so far as it may be effective to achieve its object, is adding to the supply of tonnage at a time when there are already far too many ships afloat.
That was referred to by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Gillett). The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea went on to say:
The increase in the number of new vessels induced by the artificial creation of shipowners' credit delays the day when the freight market will demand more ships. In other words, for every two orders that are
placed with this artificial assistance, the placing of half-a-dozen later on will be indefinitely postponed.
Those are very strong words, and if true will hardly assist the unemployed in this country. I hope the Financial Secretary may see his way to discuss that matter with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea. With regard to losses, I put down a question on 4th February, 1926, to know what the losses had been in regard to the Trade Facilities Act, and I was informed that they came to £20,510. That is not much on the total, but I feel those losses should not have been made if they had been dealt with in a businesslike way. One was a brickyard. If anything should have paid its way at this particular time I should have thought it would have been the making of bricks. There was another case of the Leckhampton quarries, and this company was guaranteed £27,500 for 25 years. On the 9th November, 1922, they received their first advance. On the 9th July, 1924, they received their second advance, and on the 29th of November, 1925, they had their third advance. I had a question down on the 24th November, 1925, in reply to which I was informed that they had failed. They may have failed before the 24th November, but, really, to advance Government credit to a company which had an advance on the 29th April, 1925, and failed in November, is hardly business. We must not bolster up firms of this sort.
There are two points which I want specially to raise. One is the necessity for protecting the taxpayer. I really cannot think that any industries require any more credit from the Government. I feel that they do not want these artificial props any longer. The Southern Railway made an issue not many months ago. They did not come to the Trade Facilities Committee, and they received their money all right. Why should not all companies go to the public on their own credit, and not on the credit of the Government? My second point is the protection of our credit, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Finsbury. This is vital. Every penny at the present time should be conserved and saved by the Government on account of the taxpayer. Cheapness of money in the next year or so is absolutely necessary. How are the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary to the
Treasury going to carry out the large maturities? Everyone knows what our National Debt is, but they may not know the maturities. Between 1927 and 1929 £1,000,000,000 will be maturing. This leaves out the £2,000,000,000 of 5 per cent. War Loan which the Government have the option of redeeming in 1929. If we can convert these maturities at a reduction of interest of ½ per cent., it will be a benefit to the taxpayer, but that can never be carried out if these credits and the credits which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Finsbury are continued.
I feel that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should look into every detail of these credits and see that these maturities, which start in February, 1927—a year hence—are carried out to the advantage of the taxpayer and of the industries of this country. I do not propose to refer to the Export Credits scheme, but, in conclusion, let me impress upon the Committee the necessity for protecting the taxpayer in an important matter of this sort. Let us see that everything is done so that these maturities may be put on a longer redemption basis and a lower rate of interest. Then we can look forward to a reduction in taxation, and a reduction in the large amount of interest payable on our National Debt. The taxpayer has undertaken an extreme amount of financial responsibility.

Mr. LAWSON: I will not attempt to follow the two hon. Members who have just spoken in general terms on this Financial Resolution, but I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions with reference to the £2,000,000 guarantee to Messrs. Pearson and Dorman Long—a matter which vitally affects the mining industry generally in this country. I was rather astounded when I saw in the Press the announcement of this £2,000,000 guarantee, and I was rather taken aback by the wonderful description of this new venture. When, however, I saw edition after edition of the newspapers come out day after day, with the climax this weekend, it was forced upon me that this Press boom was not so much spontaneous as a definite financial arrangement in order to boom this guarantee. The outstanding thing to me about this business is this: I happen to know some of the people who are connected as directors
with Messrs. Pearson and Dorman Long, and they are people of the most sturdy and stern individual characteristics. They are exactly where people were in the early part of the nineteenth century.
Only yesterday there appeared in one of the Northern Sunday papers the report of an interivew with a director of this company, in which he said that the Government in the present crisis cannot assist; that no Government can make trade by Act of Parliament; that industry would be better left alone; that the Government, in helping, invariably hinders. That is one of these gentlemen, a director representing this company which is asking for a guarantee of £2,000,000 by the Government to keep the company going. That is Colonel Bell, one of the directors of this company. Mark the effect. The Government may say, and the right hon. Gentleman may say, that this is only a guarantee, but the actual effect of the guarantee is worth a full two millions to this company, for we see at once that the shares of this company have leaped up. The best financial newspapers are booming it, and on every hand we read that the shares are doing very well indeed as a result of this guarantee.
What I want to ask is what are we going to get as a country for this guarantee? What is going to be the financial return? Is the country always to give a guarantee against loss and never to share any of the benefits, because that is what the guarantee amounts to? Then I particularly want to ask what conditions the Government have laid down, if any, as a result of this guarantee. Are there any conditions as to the future for the workers who are going to be engaged in Kent? Are there any conditions in relation to their housing, to their wages, to baths? Are there any conditions for joint control on the part of the workers in this particular industry? Here is a company which we are told is going to begin to operate in an area which will give coal, I understand, for centuries to come.
Indeed, we have been told in the North that it is very probable that some of the men who are employed to work this coal will come from the North of England, and one writer, I believe it was in the "Observer" yesterday, says that the people from the North of England are
the descendants of men who originally came from Kent. If they are going to be brought down to this new area and engaged in coal getting, these men will come back there with the benefit of a century of experience, and as intelligent men. Are they to have any interest at all in the general control of this industry? I want the Committee to understand that this is a vital fact. This question of control is not a question merely on paper. It is a question that springs out of the very nature of the industry to-day.
There are men like some of my colleagues here, who have been on the surface, where we represented the men. "We have dealt with wages. Until about 10 years ago we could not go down the mines. Then the representatives on the surface could go down the mines. We go into the office to do business, and we are told that a seam of a mine is not paying. We have nothing to do with the financial side of the industry. We can know the scientific side of the mine and the practical side, and yet we have nothing whatever to do with the other side. We are simply helots as far as the industry is concerned. We say that in the great coalfields when the Government is guaranteeing £2,000,000, upon which the company depend for the exploitation of that coalfield, the least they can ask, if they themselves are not going to be direct partners, is that the workers shall be partners in the industry to the extent of helping to control it.
Then I ask this further question. Is there any understanding about royalties in this area? Wealth is already flowing into the pockets of some people who hardly knew they possessed the land before the coal began to be exploited. Have we to repeat the old story of the landowners simply reaping the benefit out of the men who work under hard, dirty and dangerous conditions? There are those of us on these benches who have worked as I have worked. This House may think it is a commonplace thing to be speaking against royalties. When they understand what some of us have seen they will understand exactly what we feel about these matters. I myself, and I am sure colleagues on these benches, have worked naked, with the exception of shoes and stockings. I have worked in a three-foot seam and—would the Committee believe it—the landowner
has been getting more per tub on the surface than I have been getting for working under these conditions. Has that to be repeated in Kent, and has it to be repeated under conditions where the Government are actually guaranteeing, and the company is dependent upon the £2,000,000 to exploit the coal? Are we going to have the haphazard conditions prevailing in Kent that prevail up and down the country? Surely the least the Government can do is to ask, if it does not get any financial return, that the conditions of the workers are to be the best possible, and to see that if they are going to give this guarantee, the old game of plunder by means of royalties has to be stopped in the days to come.
For myself, I should put another point of view. We read in the newspapers that the beauties of Kent are going to be preserved. I hope they are. I hope they will not have any home-made mountains such as the hideous heaps we have in the North and the Midlands. I do not blame them, because of the haphazard conditions out of which it sprang in the 18th and 19th centuries, but for the greater part of my lifetime, when I walked out of the house, the first think I saw was a great ugly dump. What guarantee is there that that state of things is not going to be perpetuated in Kent? Surely the Government can have a say in a matter of that kind. I am going to vote, if my friends will follow me, against this guarantee. In different parts of the country, in Wales and in Durham, there are mines where there are good seams and there is good plant, well arranged, and yet they are closed because there is no trade for them.
11.0 P.M.
All that they are going to do is to exploit the Kentish coalfield with the prospect that, very probably, there will be hope of selling the coal in the long run. I have seen some of this coal. At least, I saw the coal mined in the Shakespeare pit many years ago. I was down the shaft, and if the rest of the Kentish coal is no better than that coal, there is not a great deal to be said for it. Under any conditions, if this House is going to give a guarantee of £2,000,000, the least it can ask is that the best possible conditions should be given for the workers, and that we should have the right to see that in a controlled industry they should use their
experience and intelligence, and that the outrage of royalty should be put an end to, once and for all.

Mr. BRIGGS: I put a few questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day in regard to this matter, to which he was good enough to reply, at some length. I hope he will forgive me and not consider me discourteous if I use his replies to one of my questions as the basis of my arguments to-night. I would draw attention to the fact that I have an Amendment on the Paper. My point last week, and again to-night, is that any further guarantees should be limited to the capital and not given to the interest. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave me three reasons as to why he could not accept that proposition. His first reason was that the proposal was in an unusual form. I do not think that an unusual form should weigh very heavily upon the mind and conscience of my right hon. Friend. I would ask him to note, and I would call the attention of the Committee to, the Financial Resolution [Cmd. 2584]. The Resolution proposes the very thing which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says is of such an unusual form that it cannot be adopted. The Financial Resolution instructs the Advisory Committee
to guarantee the payment of interest and principal or of either interest or principal.
That is the very thing that I suggest might be done. The second reason which the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave was that under existing conditions the guaranteed stocks would not be a suitable investment for trustees. I would ask the Committee whether they consider seriously that any single one of these stocks is a suitable investment for trustees. In the first place, these stocks are guaranteed for a limited period. When that period has ended, either in five, 10 or 20 years, the trustee, under the law, may no longer hold them. But he possesses the stocks, so what is he to do? His only option is to realise them. It is an absolute certainty that directly the guarantee is removed from nine-tenths of these stocks they will fall in value.
The third reason given to me by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that it was impossible to issue the stock at a
reasonable price if it had this restriction upon it. I ask, why should the State take a risk that banks, financiers and speculators are not prepared to accept? I think it is fair to draw attention to those who are getting these guarantees. I will take the last White Paper, No 14, issued only the week before last. I will not mention names, because, may be, it is not fair, but the Committee will be able to look into the matter themselves, and they will see to whom I refer. One of these companies, which has received a guarantee of £85,000 with the interest for 10 years, is of a character of which we have seen many flotations during the last six months, and there is not a single case in all the cases in the last six months where the shares to-day are not at from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent. discount. Here is a company of exactly the same character receiving the guarantee. That is a speculative concern which has received a guarantee. Now I draw attention to a different type of concern, an extremely wealthy concern, a concern so wealthy that it paid 25 per cent. dividend last year. It wants money and it gets a Government guarantee of £250,000 at 4½ or 5 per cent., and it can pocket the difference between that and its dividend. Is that the purpose for which these facilities are to be established? I submit that it is not. Another gets a guarantee of £75,000. Last year that company paid 30 per cent. dividend.
Further, I submit that, seeing that all firms cannot get these guarantees granted to them, it means preferential treatment for those who are happy enough to obtain them. We are told that the losses will be small. It is very much too early in the day to judge what final results will be. We must wait a year or two to see what the losses will be on the guarantees. We are also told—and this is a point which has been, if not thrown at me, at least made a reference to me on previous occasions when I have complained about these guarantees—"How can you criticise the actions of the Advisory Board, which consists of such eminent and first-class men? "I do not dispute that description for a minute. I only suggest that they are human, and not infallible. And they have their bias. I will give an instance of their bias. It happened that I was a Member of a Private Bill Com-
mittee in 1922. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) was also a Member of that Committee, and there was on the Committee a Liberal Member who is not now in the House. Our Chairman was the present Under-Secretary for the Colonies.
We had before us a Bill for a hydroelectric scheme in the Highlands of Scotland, hundreds of miles away. They had not a single customer in prospect; they could not say who were to be their customers. When we came to consider the Bill we discovered that there was a proposed guarantee of £2,000,000. I raised an objection, but was told that it would not hold good—that we had to consider the Bill on its merits. The Bill was passed, and when I asked how I could stop the guarantee, I was told that it was almost impossible. Coming from the North, I did not know what "impossible" meant, and I came downstairs into this House, and within half an hour blocked the Bill which I had just passed upstairs.
It was a most extraordinary performance, and I believe caused considerable perturbation in many quarters, particularly among the promoters of the Bill. Considerable pressure was put upon me to remove my objection, but I said I would only do so if the promoters withdrew their request for the guarantee for this extremely speculative object. They would not do so, and that, to my mind, shows that they knew what a risk it was, although the scheme was backed by some of the biggest financiers in the City of London. All they wanted was to grab State money, and let the State take the risk of the undertaking. The result was that the Bill was debated on the Floor of the House. No more was heard of it or of the promoters, and the scheme has never been carried through.
I suggest that this is an opportunity to put an end to these grants, which are merely an opportunity for grab. The poor man grabs and the rich man grabs, and this is our opportunity to put an end to it. As a first step, I propose later to move as an Amendment that the grant should be limited to capital, and no longer continue in respect of interest.

Mr. TAYLOR: I rise to protest against the favouritism shown by the Government in the administration of the Trade Facili-
ties Act and the Export Credit Scheme. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Resolution, laid great stress on the fact that the decisions of the Committee before whom applications go should be free from political considerations, and we on this side of the House agree that that is important so far as guarantees of this kind are concerned. The point is this. The justification for the Act was that it would help to reduce unemployment, and I want to know why it is that those engaged in the export trade with Russia are not treated in the same way as exporters to other countries. Mexico, Portugal, Rumania, Bulgaria, Estonia, and other countries have the advantages of this Act. Three years ago the right hon. Gentleman who is now President of the Board of Trade (Sir P. Cunliffe Lister) stated that the moment Russia created conditions essential to sound trade, then at that moment the export credit system would be at the disposal of all British traders who desired to trade with Russia.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: On a point of Order. I do not know if the hon. Member was in his place when the Chairman gave a ruling on procedure. If the question of Russian trade is discussed now in the general Debates, will the Committee have an opportunity of discussing it again on the Amendment having particular reference to Russia?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): The Amendment which deals specifically with the question of Russia is out of Order, and I should not have called it in any case.

Mr. TAYLOR: I take it I am entitled to discuss the policy of the Government in the administration of these Acts and in order to do so I would oppose the Resolution, although, personally, I am not in favour of reducing the amount of money available for carrying on the trade of the country. At the same time we are entitled to make our protest. Since the present President of the Board of Trade made that statement three years ago, firms in this country have been engaged in trade with Russia upon a credit basis. Russia's foreign trade has grown since 1921, from £20,000,000—in the first year of the trade agreement—to £113,000,000 according to figures given in the House a few days
ago. Can any Member of the Government, or any Member of the House give a single instance in this country or out of it, where the present Russian Government or any of its trading agencies, have failed to fulfil trading obligations into which they have entered? I do not believe that challenge can be accepted. If it can, I hope hon. Members opposite will produce the evidence. What is the truth about conditions in Russia to-day? Russia has stabilised her currency without outside assistance; she has balanced her budget by taxation; and internal conditions in Russia have improved tremendously during the last two or three years. Her production, both agricultural and industrial, was restored in the last completed year, to 71 per cent. of the pre-war figure, after making allowance for the succession States; the area of land under cultivation is expanding year by year; great new electric power stations are making their appearance and the electrification of the countryside is going on.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not carry his argument in favour of extending these trade facilities to trade with Russia to too great lengths. It is not necessary to tell the Committee all the conditions in Russia at present.

Mr. TAYLOR: I am endeavouring to connect my argument with an appeal to the Government to remove the restrictions which they now place on Anglo-Russian trade. I wish to show that conditions in Russia to-day are entirely different from the conditions of three or four years ago.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: There are no such restrictions.

Mr. TAYLOR: The hon. Member knows there are restrictions if he has any intelligence at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] One restriction on the development of Anglo-Russian trade is this—that the political uncertainty created by the Government's attitude, and their refusal to clear up outstanding questions, prevent manufacturers from undertaking long term risks. [HON. MEMBERS: "What Government?"] I am speaking of the British Government, who have consistently refused to take any steps to convey to the Russian Government with what parts of the Treaty
which were negotiated by Labour they disagree. In the nine months between the 1st October, 1924, and the 31st May, 1925, Russia imported 32,247 tons of agricultural machinery, of the value of approximately £2,000,000, and of that quantity only 179 tons, of approximately the value of £10,000, was imported from Great Britain. Before the war the constituency that I have the honour to represent sent anything from £600,000 to £750,000 worth of agricultural machinery every year—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Member will not continue to go into too great detail in regard to Russia. It seems to me to have nothing whatever to do with this Resolution.

Mr. TAYLOR: It has a great deal to do with this question, as I shall be able to show a little later on. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Labour is knocking men off the unemployment register in the City of Lincoln, and these men, many of them middle-aged, are looking to the industry in which they have been employed most of their lives as their only hope of getting a job. Some three months ago an agricultural engineering combine in this country was offered very consider able orders for agricultural machinery for Russia, and the firms in the City of Lincoln were offered orders that would have made a substantial diminution in the unemployment in that city. The managing director of the largest combine of agricultural machinery makers in this country stated openly a short time ago that an order for £60,000 had been missed, so far as the City of Lincoln was concerned, merely because the credit facilities that are available to other countries were not available for financing Anglo-Russian trade, and because of the political uncertainty the bankers and financiers were not able to take the ordinary trade risks that they would take in normal times.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has an Amendment on the Paper which has been ruled out of order, for the reason that it is not in order to move it on this particular Money Resolution. It should be in the form of an Instruction on the Bill.

Mr. TAYLOR: Am I not in order in criticising the administration of the Government and their refusal to extend
the provisions of this Act to Anglo-Russian trade?

Mr. STEPHEN: Further, on the point of Order, I would like to submit that the Prime Minister, in 1921, in introducing the original scheme, stated definitely that the Committee was instructed to consider each application in the light of the amount of fresh employment it would bring to this country. I submit that the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), in developing his argument, is seeking to show how, under this scheme, if the administration of the scheme is properly carried out, there will be a great deal of fresh employment provided for unemployed people in this country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: To a certain extent the hon. Member would be in order in pointing that out, but to deal with special cases in regard to trading with Russia would be in its proper place if it were moved as an Instruction on the Bill, but not upon this Money Resolution.

Mr. MAXTON: I very carefully read every word that was said in the discussion on the Financial Resolution last Session, and speaker after speaker roamed into every corner of the globe—India, Nigeria and Kenya. Is there any reason why Russia should be specially singled out as a place that is barred from discussion, other than the fact that it seems to be objectionable to certain hon. Members opposite?

Mr. STEPHEN: Further, on the point of Order. I would like to submit there is this additional £5,000,000 to be voted here to-night, and surely this Committee is entitled to ask for some guarantee from the Minister as to whether there will be a different policy pursued in regard to Russia in connection with the various schemes which the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) is trying to put before the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member desires to suggest that any particular country or trade should be picked out for special treatment, it must be done on the Bill, and not on this Resolution.

Mr. STEPHEN: I submit that the hon. Member for Lincoln has not suggested this country should be picked out for special treatment, but that it should get
the same treatment that other countries have been getting in the past. That, I submit, is a matter for discussion on this Resolution.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: So far as I am aware, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent this being extended under the Trade Facilities Act to Russia.

Mr. THURTLE: May I submit that the Bill provides for a total of £75,000,000, and we have only details of guarantees amounting to £63,000,000. Is not my hon. Friend in Order in suggesting the way in which the odd £12,000,000 should be expended in the future?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think he would be in Order on this Money Resolution. That would arise upon the Bill itself.

Mr. TAYLOR: I will endeavour to put the points I still have to make as concisely as possible, but I am very anxious that the attention of the Committee and the Government should be drawn to this question, because I think it is a matter of very great importance to the future of this country, and the future of the constituency I represent. As I was saying, we recently had the opportunity of very considerable orders. I want to quote the statement, not of a Member of the Labour party, but of the managing director of Babcock & Wilcox, on the 4th January of this year:
I am bound to admit that the business relations I have so far had with the Soviet Government have been satisfactory in every way, and it is difficult to believe that the prejudice generally in this country is justified by the present position whatever may be the fact of the history of the past.'
I do not for a moment believe that all the fault is with the present or with previous Governments of Great Britain. But I do appeal to the Government to adopt a different attitude and outlook in regard to their economic and political relations with Russia. I wish the Prime Minister had been here, for I should have liked to question him on a quotation from a speech he made in October, 1920. It was:
In my view the best thing for world trade, of which we should get our share, would be the development of Russian trade as and when it becomes possible by Germany.
During the last two or three months very large orders for agricultural machinery
have been placed in Germany, and the German banks have given credit terms to those manufacturing concerns—three harvests' credit. What is the position? Everybody knows that the Germans have been paying very high rates of interest for industrial capital. A short time ago we were able to see the spectacle of many good patriotic Britishers, combining patriotic fervour with push, and in the case of a loan for Germany, at 94, with 7 per cent. interest, helping to subscribe 14 times over in a few hours £5,000,000! This was not for the purpose of British industry, nor for its help; not for the purpose of helping British unemployment, but for the purpose of exploiting German labour—at a high rate of interest. I want to ask the Prime Minister, if he replies for the Government, whether or not the Government are adopting a plan, consciously and definitely, of leaving the development of the Russian market to the Germans? Is it to be the market in which the Germans will sell their surplus exports, is it the theory of the Government that we should in the long run benefit by the receipt of reparation payments from Germany? If that is being pursued as a definite policy, the sooner the British people, the wage earners in the industries affected, and capitalists and investors understand it, the better it will be for everybody concerned !
We are not asking for favoured terms for Russia. We are merely asking for fair play. It is no answer to say that during the time the Labour Government was in Office that only two applications were received and turned down. These applications were unsound financially, and ought to have been turned down by a Labour, a Tory, or any Government representing the interests of the British taxpayer. We are not asking that any unsound proportion should be entertained. We are merely asking that the advantages of these Acts should not be debarred from Anglo-Russian trade operations, and that where a firm or corporation has the opportunity of submitting a substantial contribution for the benefit of unemployment in this country it ought to be understood that the committee dealing with such an application will go into that case just as carefully and impartially as if the case was one with Portugal or
any of the South American States was concerned. That is all we are asking. Applications have not been made in a concrete form, simply because firms have been definitely informal that under the Acts relating to trade facilities and overseas trading there would not be a penny for Anglo-Russian trade. That statement has been made on the floor of the House on behalf of the Government. Therefore, it is perfectly true that you have not had any considerable number of schemes relating to Anglo-Russian trade put before the Government—simply because it was known that there was no chance whatever of their being entertained. At a time when some important negotiations were going on I asked the President of the Board of Trade to receive a deputation to go into the facts, but I was met with a curt refusal. I hope hon. Members, those on the opposite side particularly, will realise that some of us who take this view have lived among a community who have suffered, as we believe, through the manner in which the problem of Anglo-Russian relations has been handled. We are not actuated by hatred towards our own country, but we see men who have been hard-working citizens without a job year after year and believe that they might have a job if this credit difficulty could be got over; and in holding that view I hope we shall be given the credit by other hon. Members for loving our own country as much as they do.

Mr. BOOTHBY: There are one or two questions that I very much want to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury with reference to this Trade Facilities legislation which is brought in year after year. I think it is the opinion of hon. Members on all sides of the House that it is high time a Committee of Inquiry was set up to investigate all this class of legislation. In the House last year the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) made a series of very cogent and forceful speeches on the subject of this trade facilities legislation, and in every speech he appealed to the Government to set up a Committee of Inquiry, declaring that it was overdue. I must confess that I cannot understand why the Government have not set up such a Committee during the past year. Instead, they come down to the House again to ask for the usual £5,000,000 additional credit. I hope they
will set up a Committee before they come to the House next year, because there are many questions connected with this legislation which require the closest scrutiny. If the scheme is of great value in relieving unemployment, why do the Government ask only for £75,000,000? What induced anybody to fix that particular figure? If the scheme is of great value they might well ask for £200,000,000, or £300,000,000.
Last year a great deal was said about the effect upon the national credit of this particular class of legislation. I do not think any grave charge can be made against this legislation on the ground that it seriously affects our national credit. Our credit is good. The national credit is based primarily upon the taxable capacity of the community, and if this legislation really does what its authors claim for it, and increases production, it increases the taxable capacity of the community, and in that way it ought to increase our credit. I do not think any strong case can be made out on that score. On the other hand, a very strong case can be formulated against the whole of this Trade Facilities legislation on the ground that it provides cheap capital for one industry primarily at the expense of other industries. That particularly applies to the smaller industries of the country. There are certain industries in which the granting or withholding of credits under this scheme means the difference between their continuing to exist and collapsing altogether. I think that any industry, especially in the smaller lines, has a justifiable ground for complaint if a particular rival, for no apparent reason, obtains this credit and is thus enabled to cut out the small industry which has not got this credit causing the latter to go out of business altogether. On these grounds alone a good case can be made out against this class of legislation and the Government should consider seriously the question of the extension of this legislation to smaller industries.
There is another obvious defect, and it is that a contingent liability of £75,000,000 sterling is created for the taxpayers without any specific asset whatever. I think the taxpayers are quite justified in seriously questioning this kind of business. I know it is good so far as it stimulates production but it is invidious in regard to one small industry as against another and
there should be a Committee of business and financial aspects or a Royal Crown to investigate the whole of this class of legislation. With regard to these credits the bankers are in a much better position to grant loans, because they have branches right throughout the country with a local branch manager in every town who knows every merchant on the country-side and for these reasons it would be better to leave the great branches to run the credits granted to the small trader. Then we have also to consider the heavy industries, because they have gone through a desperate time and they will require a great deal of reorganisation in the course of the next four or five years and all the factories will have to be remodelled and extended out into the country and the whole production will have to be specialised with more co-operation.
I do not want to trespass on the delicate ground of the coal industry, but it is obvious that whatever the Commission may recommend a large number of men in the coal industry will have to be transferred from one district to another, from pits which are not work able at a profit to new fields and for that a good deal of capital will be required. I think a strong case can be made out for granting some form of credit to this large industry. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) has stated that he believes confidence is a very good psychological factor in stimulating industrial revival, and if the Government could put the whole credit of the State behind the heavy industries it might have that psychological effect upon the future of the heavy industries. Therefore I appeal to the Government to set up an appropriate committee to investigate the whole question of this trade facilities legislation with particular regard to the heavy industries as opposed to the small industries. Such a committee should consider, first of all, the direction in which State credit should be applied if applied at all; and secondly whether any security should be required for the taxpayer and if so what form it should take, I think the senior Member for the City of London effectively disposed of the idea of appointing Government directors. The suggestion was made that the Government should appoint directors in all these big industries. I am aware that
the late Lord Milner in a well-known book he wrote put forward the view that we might very well demand a certain number of deferred shares on behalf of the taxpayers. I do not express any opinion as to the merits or demerits of any scheme, but a committee of enquiry might profitably examine the whole business.
May I say a word on behalf of my constituents, directed particularly to the Secretary of Oversea Trade Department. I do not express any opinion as to whether the export credits scheme should be extended to Russia or not, but I think it is high time the Government made a definite statement with regard to the whole trade position with Russia. If we have a trading agreement with Russia, why should not we apply the export credits scheme? As far as I can see, it should not affect the general political relationship between this country and Russia at all. I am not at all convinced that the application of the export credits scheme to Russia would benefically affect the herring trade, because I believe Russia has sub-statistical credits in this country already into which she can dip, but I should like a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary as to the whole of this question, because the whole of the North East coast of Scotland is in a roar of protest with regard to this refusal of the Government to extend the export credits scheme. Rightly or wrongly, the herring trade thinks it is being missed by the refusal of the Government to do this, and if the Government are going to continue to refuse to extend the export credits scheme to Russia, they should say first of all whether in their opinion it would seriously affect the position of the herring industry, and in the second place, what is the reason they put forward for refusing to extend the scheme. I only ask for information. I do not intend to express my opinion.

Mr. VARLEY: An hon. Member a few moments ago based his opposition to this proposal on what he said was the fact that this kind of legislation is introduced to deal with matters of a temporary character. He further said he thought the time for these temporary measures had passed. I do not think so, and I do not think it will ever pass while we have a million and a third people unemployed.
The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that the doling out of national moneys is left to a Committee of three. The sums we are asked to Vote are fairly formidable sums, and we ought to be allowed to say something with regard to the purposes to which they are said to be devoted. Attention has been called to the fact that some of this money has been used for the purpose of building ships, where there are already too many ships, and the present proposal is that some of the money shall be devoted to the winning of coal when we do not know what to do with the coal we are now producing. It is with regard to that aspect of the question that I want to say a word or two. We have a right to expect that this Advisory Committee of three know their business. We have no right to question their probity, but whoever they are, and whatever their qualifications, they cannot be expected to know the whole ramifications of industry throughout the length and breadth of the land. One seriously wonders whether they have taken into consideration the possibility of the guarantor, the State, being called upon to find the money. So far as Kent is concerned, the newspapers in the last fortnight have painted some very rosy pictures indeed. When you turn to the financial aspect of the question there is nothing to justify the painting of this picture. I have been sufficiently curious to-day to take out the figures relative to the Kent coal field for the period since the introduction of the National Wages Agreement of 1921. Since that time there have been eighteen quarterly ascertainments taken out in the County of Kent, and, of these, thirteen have shown losses, and considerable losses. It is true that five of them showed profits, but when the profits which have been made in the coalfield are deducted from the losses there is still a net loss on coal production in that county, during the last three and a half years, of £109,000.
I believe it is true to say that there has been expended in that county hitherto about £3,500,000, upon which not a farthing of dividend has yet been paid. The figures which I have just recited take no cognizance whatever of interest on capital or even of amortisation. If amortisation charges were added to the figures, the loss, in the County in comparison with its output, would be huge indeed. If money is to be dealt out of the national
purse for the purpose of rehabilitating the coal industry, I want to suggest that this House ought first to be given a chance of saying where that money should be directed, and I feel sure, if this House were given that chance, it would not say that the money could best be spent in Kent, because in that County, three and a half millions of money have already gone without the output reaching 500,000 tons per annum. In Nottinghamshire, we have had in the last twenty years, a cost of less than £400,000, and the present rate of output is in excess of one million tons per annum. We could still do with thousands more men as coal producers, if we had anywhere to house them. Only last Saturday we had an application from a colliery company for three hundred men, for whom work was ready, but there was nowhere to house them. If money is to be spent and dealt out to the coal-mining companies, I want to suggest it should be given to those areas where it can best be applied in the national interest.
There is another espect of this question which causes me considerable disquiet, and it is this. The Government appointed a Commission to inquire into the whole ramifications of the coal industry and to deal, for anything we know to the contrary, with the state of the organisation of the industry and to deal with the system under which it is to be carried on in the future. For good or for ill there have been placed before that Commission the reasons why the industry should pass into national control, and the action of this Committee in suggesting that two millions of money should be placed into the hands of private interests is in a measure interfering with the pre-judgment of that Commission which is now sitting. I think it is perfectly scandalous that this should have taken place at this particular time, and I would ask the Financial Secretary if it is not possible for him to get his; Vote to-night and remove therefrom this particular item. I feel sure that it would give general satisfaction to the House if the Government would have, as well as the business efficiency, the political decency to wait until the Commission has reported before they commit themselves to what seems to me to be a policy of carrying coals to Newcastle.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I have only a few words to say on this subject. I am one of those who believe that when this legislation was first introduced it served a very useful purpose, but I am inclined to think that I rather sympathise with the view at the present time of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) who appeared to doubt whether it any longer did serve a useful purpose. I feel perfectly certain of this, that if it is to serve a useful purpose in the future the whole machinery in regard to it must be considerably tightened up, because I cannot help thinking that a position has been reached in which I am almost inclined to say Government facilities are being exploited for purposes for which they were never intended. I want to ask the Financial Secretary to give special attention to one aspect of the case which has come before me in a particular instance during the last few months. A number of these guarantees have been given to companies for the purpose of the construction of some particular machinery or the production of some particular goods, for which they had to spend large sums in what was to them raw material. There have been cases in which that raw material, which was purchased with the money so guaranteed by the Government, could have been purchased in this country—British-made goods—on quite as good terms as from foreign manufacturers, but the fact is that companies which have received these guarantees from the Government have purchased those manufactured or semi-manufactured articles from foreign firms. They have purchased articles produced by foreign labour when, with a little more pressure from the Government, they could have been obliged to purchase those goods from English manufacturers, and thus definitely to have increased employment in this country. In a particular case which I have in mind at the moment, I believe that, after considerable pressure had been brought to bear on the company in question, they did, if I may say so, somewhat reform their methods. It seems to me, however, to be perfectly clear that, unless the whole machinery is tightened up very considerably, the benefit which these facilities can give in reducing unemployment will be lost.
There is only one other point that I want to make, and that is as to the risk
to the taxpayer from these guarantees. It is said that the loss has been small, and I do not question the figures which have been given; but how can you tell what is going to be the loss on a guarantee until the guarantee comes to an end? My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) quoted a case where a guarantee was given just a very short time before the company failed. I do not know what security the Government have to sec against that guarantee, but my hon. Friend, I think, omitted to note that the advance which was made to that company only just before it failed made up a total advance to that company of £100,000, instead of only £23,000, which I think my hon. Friend mentioned. I should like to know, in a case of that sort, what security there is. There are other guarantees outstanding, which may be prolonged even beyond the original period. What certainty has the taxpayer that the money thus guaranteed will be paid off without loss to the Treasury? I think there are two outstanding reasons why the whole of this machinery should be re-examined very carefully. One is the interest of the taxpayer, and the other is the very considerable doubt which some of us have as to whether this machinery is being used in the way in which it might best be used for the increase of employment in this country.

12.0 M.

Mr. STEPHEN: I think the Financial Secretary did not feel altogether comfortable when he was introducing this Financial Resolution, and, after the reception it has had from all quarters of the Committee, I can understand the somewhat halting terms in which the right hon. Gentleman introduced it. It is in the recollection of some hon. Members that when this legislation was introduced, there was a very pressing unemployment problem, and this Measure was put forward on the assumption that this problem on the big scale that existed at that time was a temporary phase, due to various disturbances such as the position of the exchanges and the generally disturbed condition of European affairs. In the minds of the promoters of the Measure, and in the minds of the Members of this House, it would appear from my reading of the discussion that took place that it was quite clear that they contemplated a revival of prosperity and an increase of
trade, and that this was simply a temporary Measure which was going to help for a short time in setting going again the wheels of industry.
The Prime Minister at that time, the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he was outlining his proposals, said:
This country, I believe, has probably touched the bottom in regard to its trade.
That sentence in itself illustrates the point, that in the mind of the Government the position of things in the country was unprecedented and that a temporary Measure such as this might give an impetus which would result in a revival of prosperity. But on various occasions in the House since then the right hon. Gentleman has taken a different view. I think we all realise to-day that the problem of unemployment is not going to be solved by any extension of this Trade Facilities legislation, at least on anything like the lines on which it has so far been run. I can conceive of it being remodelled and made a very useful piece of machinery, but as it stands I think there are many hon. Members who are disposed to press upon the Government the winding up of this legislation. I was greatly struck by the speech of one hon. Member opposite, who spoke in such unmeasured terms of the way in which this scheme was being worked at the present time. We are now in the position that certain interests are exploiting the problem of the unemployed in order to forward through their own particular interests and not the interest of the unemployed, which was the predominating interest at the initiation of the scheme. I suggest to the the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that, owing to what has been said tonight from hon. Members in all parts of the House, it would be very advantageous for the Committee if he would issue again a statement of the grants that have been made under the Trade Facilities Act. He may tell me that I can get it at the Vote Office. No doubt, I could, with some difficulty. In making inquiry at the Vote Office one only gets the arrangements for the preceding year. For the earlier years one has to go to the Library and dig out the information.
In view of the general feeling of un-settlement with regard to this legislation it would be in the interests of the scheme and of sound government if the Minister
acceded to our request and issued a statement of all the companies which have received grants from the beginning, together with a tabular statement showing the different branches of industry which have shared in the benefits. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in outlining the proposals of the scheme, spoke enthusiastically about railway extensions and electrifications, of waterways and all the improvements that were to result from the scheme. It is true that money has been devoted to electrification, but I would like to know how much of it has been spent in this country and how much elsewhere. I notice that about £2,000,000 has been devoted to setting up an electric tramway scheme in Athens. Athens is a historic city and has wonderful traditions which may appeal to a die-hard Tory mind. It has traditions which may also appeal to many of us who realise how much we owe to Greek thought. But at the same time while we have this respect for the past, we feel that this money might have been much better spent at home, and that the traffic problem of London, for instance, might have called for some expenditure. I know that the Minister may tell me that this Athens scheme was a sound investment and that the Advisory Committee would not have proposed it unless it had been sound. If it were sound why did it come under this scheme at all? There is the element of a gamble. It would have been to the advantage of this country if the asset that was being created had been created in this country instead of being at the mercy, possibly, of a Bolshevik revolutionary in Greece.
In the allocation of money under the Act I notice that grants have gone to the sugar beet factories. I see that our friend Lord Weir has been on very favourable terms with the Committee in connection with this matter. I find that there was allocated to the Anglo-Scottish Sugar Beet Company some £300,000, and that a second Anglo-Scottish Sugar Beet Company got £850,000. We have this position: that we are not only supplying a subsidy to this business but that the State is practically putting down the capital also. It it is a success then Lord Weir and his friends who have come into it will walk off with the asset which is created; if it is a failure then the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, or as I hope the successors of these two gentlemen, will have to deal with the situation.
Let me say a word about Russia. It is interesting on going back to the beginning of this scheme to find that the Russian question came up when the scheme was set on foot. Members on these benches pressed the case for Russia then. My friend Mr. Waterson asked whether they were to understand that Russia was not to be considered and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) gave a definite assurance that "Russia is within the ambit of this Scheme." I put it to the Government that when that was said, when that pledge was given, Labour Members expected that it would be worth something and that full consideration would be given to the case of Russia. We do not want the Government or the Advisory Committee to give trade facilities to the case of Russia which are not good business. We only ask that the prejudice in the minds of some Members of the House should be removed, and in order to encourage them to get rid of this prejudice let me refer them to a speech made by the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) when dealing with the question of Russia at that time. He made a very striking speech and referred to the fact that there were certain people who immediately saw horrid visions whenever Bolshevism was mentioned. In view of the possibilities of this trade I ask the Government to give some sympathetic consideration to its development.
I also want to appeal to the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade in connection with the herring fishery. I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). There is a great amount of discontent in Scotland with regard to this matter, and it is important everything should be done that can be done to help these people in the present difficult circumstances. If I am not able to persuade the Financial Secretary to the Treasury I am sure that the additional eloquence of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department would produce some effect. There is a great deal to be said for the position he took up in 1921, when he conceived that a good deal could be done to
encourage these fishermen under the Trade Facilities Act. I would remind the Committee of what he said in connection with this matter during the Second Reading Debate on the Trade Facilities Bill:
The object of this Bill is to get manufactured goods made in this country by our people and exported, and not to give opportunities to people in other countries to manufacture goods with the aid of our credit. There is another point which seems to me to be Germane to this statement in the Bill as to manufactured goods. The greater portion of our trade with Russia before the War was in two things—coal and herrings. The herring is the product of our shores, and, before the War, we exported something like £4,000,000 worth of herrings to Russia and Northern Europe, our annual total exports of herrings being £5,500,000–3,000,000 fish. They went through Lubeck, Hamburg, Riga, Memel, Danzig and St. Petersburg, and filtered down through Russia, Poland and the Balkan States to Turkey and the Levant.
This is the point which brings it under the Trade Facilities section of thescheme:—
The herring represents mostly labour, and herring in barrels, smoked or salted, is a manufactured article. I am not a Member for a Scottish constituency, but I wish some of the Scottish Members were here to back me up. I think that under this Bill it is worth urging the point that the herring in its salted state should come within this description of a manufactured article. It is of the utmost importance that we should keep the herring fishery going for more reasons than one, quite apart from the unemployment question. The herring fishery is the nursery of the Navy, and the herring fishers are thus the bulwark of this nation. In sending out the herring under this Bill, if they ask for credit—as they were, not under this Bill but on other grounds, some while ago—we are sending out labour in its best form. There is no money needed for raw material; nearly the whole cost of the herring trade lies in the labour of our own people. Therefore, before it is too late, I would put in a good word for the herring fishery under the description of an article manufactured in the United Kingdom, as provided by the Bill in Clause I."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1921, col. 751, Vol. 147.]
As a result of that eloquent appeal made by the colleague of the Financial Secretary, I hope that we in Scotland may look for some change in the attitude of the Government, and that something will be done.

The CHAIRMAN: May I ask the hon. Member if an application has been made and refused for aid to the herring export trade?

Mr. STEPHEN: I think the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department would be cognisant of the fact of any application that was made, when he was making that speech. Another point I wish to raise is that of the constitution of the Advisory Committee. There are three people who are concerned in this matter. The former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead, when he was taking the House into his confidence with regard to this Committee, suggested a reason why the subject should not lie within the province of a Government Department. He said:
The House will readily appreciate that it would be impossible for any Government Department or any political body, or any Committee which was supposed to have any political predilection whatsoever, to be subject to the influences which might be brought to bear. You must put such a matter in the hands of a Committee which will be free and untrammelled.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October, 1921, col. 659, Vol. 147.]
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead is not now in the Government, but the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, in the present Government, in those days was not in office, and he took a very different view from that of the right hon. Gentleman who has since been relegated to the back benches, for, on the 19th October, we find that his view of the Committee was as follows:
The Prime Minister said that the £25,000,000 would be spread out among the firms of the country by a committee of high and eminent financial and commercial authorities. I mistrust high and eminent financial and commercial authorities …. I say that that £25,000,000 should be at the disposal of the President of the Board of Trade and of nobody else—not a committee of business men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th October, 1921; col. 153, Vol. 147.]
I submit that, seeing we have Members of the Government who also are in agreement with us on this matter, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury might reconsider altogether the constitution of this Committee. Let us have a bigger Committee, and let us have more interests represented on it. The last thing that I want to say is, that it seems to me that it is a very pitiful matter that the sufferings of the unemployed and the solution of the poverty problem of the people should be taken as the reason for the maintenance of this Committee if the Minister is unable to show that it is really effecting a useful purpose in that connec-
tion, and if the main advantages of it are going to certain particular interests other than the unemployed. Consequently, I would urge upon the Government that this should be the last time that they should come for an extension of this legislation, and that, instead, they should offer us something much bigger. Here we are creating assets as a result of the social credit. These assets are being handed over to particular individuals, to people who maintain that private enterprise is able to carry on without any support from any Government and without any interference from any Government. It is a most humiliating position for any Minister with the reputation and past record of the present Minister to have to defend such a policy as this, and I hope that we are going to get some assurance from the Government that we are going to have an inquiry into the whole business. If we are going to use social credit, and create assets by the use of it, let those assets belong to the community who supply the credit. When the scheme was introduced, I think, it was in the mind of the Prime Minister of that day that the local authorities should embark on one sort of scheme or another, and that there should be assets created within the country, which should belong to the community, but at the present time this scheme is nothing more than a robbery of the whole community, and that, on the plea that it is doing something to help the unemployed.

Mr. McNEILL: Hon. Members will remember that the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) suggested that we should begin by having a general discussion, and that then we should go on to the Amendments. As we have not yet reached the Amendments, and it is half-past twelve, perhaps the Committee will think it convenient that I should now reply to the points already raised, and that then we might discuss the Amendments.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Do I understand that we are to be confined to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman? There are many questions that we want to raise. I have been listening for hours, and have not yet had a statement from the Minister in regard to the items in which I am interested, and I protest if I am not to have an opportunity of putting him a series of questions.

Mr. McNEILL: I have neither the power nor the wish to cut out the hon. Member or any other hon. Member. I am merely making a suggestion for the convenience of hon. Members, and it is for them to accept or reject that suggestion.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. May I ask the Prime Minister if he seriously proposes to go ahead with the whole of this Financial Resolution, Amendments, and everything else tonight? I put it to him that it is scarcely treating the subject with the importance that it deserves, and I certainly think it is unfair to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who has had a heavy day already.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I made a statement to the Leader of the Opposition after questions to the effect that we should take these two Motions, and he raised no question about it.

Mr. MAXTON: On that point I should have imagined that when the Prime Minister made that statement, and the whole House accepted it as being a reasonable day's business, he did not anticipate that the Financial Resolution for the Ulster unemployment grant would occupy the time that it did, and surely he is not going to ask the Committee to pass a £75,000,000 grant at this hour of the night.

The PRIME MINISTER: £5,000,000, not £75,000,000.

The CHAIRMAN: This is a little irregular. The right hon. Member for the Canterbury Division of Kent (Mr. R. McNeill) was in possession.

Mr. MAXTON: It was in his interest that I was raising the question!

Mr. McNEILL: If I were to make a general survey of the Debate which has taken place up to the present, I would say that the criticisms and comments that have been passed so far have fallen into two categories. There has been a good deal of criticism of individual schemes which have been guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act, and some suggestions with regard to schemes that ought or ought not to be favoured with a guarantee, and, on the other hand, there has been quite a different category
altogether. Several of the speeches that have been made have really either attacked the whole principle of this scheme of guarantees, or at all events have suggested that the time has now come to amend it. I would like to say a word or two, first, about one or two of the more particular criticisms that have been made, and then something about the general criticisms.
I must refer to one or two speeches which have been occupied about trade with Russia. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has referred to that matter. He has linked it up, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) has done with the question of herrings. The hon Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor) dealt with it in much more general terms. I am only speaking as regards the Trade Facilities Act.
The hon. Member for Camlachie referred to a statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1921, the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir E. Horne), when he said Russia would be within the ambit of this legislation, and the hon. Member suggested, with some indignation, that that pledge had been departed from. It never has been departed from. Russia is within the ambit of the Trade Facilities Act. As a matter of fact, applications for trade with Russia have been received and have been considered by the Committee and have been rejected by the Committee, not on the ground that Russia rather than any other country had made the application but on grounds of security, which would have been equally valid if the geographical area had been quite different. Secondly, so far as Russia is concerned—I am not speaking with regard to overseas trade but with regard to the Trade Facilities Act—it has always been open to give guarantees for trade with Russia and it is now open if the Advisory Committee in their discretion, think that the business proposition is such as can be legitimately guaranteed.
Another hon. Member asked why no business had been done in regard to trade with India. The suggestion of trade with India has my sympathy, but the answer is simple. There has been no sort of embargo upon business and trade with India but there, again, we are only limited by the applications which are made. Business to the value of two
millions has been guaranteed with India and if applications had been made for equally good business, equally well secured, to double that amount, I have very little doubt the Committee would have recommended guarantees on the applications, and we should have had much larger figures shown with regard to trade with India.
I want to say generally, as I did at the outset of the Debate, that I am not called upon to deal seriatim with the criticisms of the different schemes or suggestions made with regard to other schemes than those under the Trade Facilities Act. It is not the purpose of the Treasury to upset the functions of the Committee. I repeat that I do not think there has been serious criticism from any quarter of the House. It is obviously desirable that a matter of this sort, however much it comes within criticism, should be judged impartially and by a non-political body. But there is a larger question as regards whether this legislation should be continued or not. Some hon. Members took the line that this legislation is very valuable under certain circumstances but that it had outgrown its usefulness. I want to refer to the last point raised by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), namely, that of the coal development in Kent. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Varley) made an appeal to me to take that item out of the Resolution. The hon. Member for Ilford inquired whether there was any security for it and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen—who was speaking more generally and not confining himself to any particular item—questioned the security which the taxpayer has for all these guarantees. I want to tell the hon. Member for Ilford that, as far as this particular item is concerned, I think it good for a guarantee of two millions because it is a first charge on all the assets. Speaking generally, in every case the Committee—a sound business Committee, sometimes criticised on the ground that they are too narrowly a business committee—sanction the guarantee of a loan when there is good security for the advance.

Mr. SPENCER: What security would there be for developing a coalfield in Kent if it failed to produce coal?

Mr. McNEILL: The assets represent probably many millions of coal.

Mr. SPENCER: If the assets are there.

Mr. McNEILL: The hon. Member for Camlachie expressed the hope that this might be the last time the House might be asked to continue the Trade Facilities Act.

Mr. STEPHEN: On the present lines.

Mr. McNEILL: I thought the hon. Member was addressing himself to the probability or possibility of withdrawing the two millions from the general resolution. It is not the Treasury's business to withdraw or assent to items, but even if it did rest with the Treasury to do so, I have not heard any reason for doing so.

Mr. VARLEY: When the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an undertaking to Lord Banbury, as he is now, that the Treasury would always be responsible for the actions of the Committee, was that not meant? He gave this undertaking when the Bill was first introduced.

Mr. McNEILL: That is perfectly true. I accept Parliamentary responsibility, for the Treasury is responsible to Parliament for the Committee, but it is quite a different thing to interfere with the Committee's decisions. I do not mind saying that I share personally the hope of the hon. Member for Camlachie that it may not be necessary to renew this legislation again on these lines. I will go further, I never have been since 1921, an enthusiastic admirer of it. I remember perfectly well, as many hon. Members do, when it was first introduced in this House, the glowing speech of the Prime Minister of the day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), under whose spell we all were at that time, no one more so than myself. However, that is past. The money was to be used for constructive measures in view, and I do not go back in the least upon the conviction I had at that time and under the conditions then prevailing, that it really was a very necessary measure. Unemployment at the present time is bad enough, it was more appalling then. A great many things were then being done which anybody who had old-fashioned economic ideas must have thought unsound. Many things we did then were uneconomic and this was one of them. Nothing, for instance, was more unsound
than the Rent Restrictions Act. But these measures, under the cares of the post-War period and all the problems we had to deal with then, were inevitable. I think we are right in renewing this Act. At this moment unemployment, although improving to some extent, has not yet improved enough to be a certain indication with regard to the future. I earnestly hope, but I do not express any confidence, that within a short period—perhaps the next year or the year after, or within a reasonable time—we shall be able to dispense with this unsound legislation. That being so, I acknowledge that this is a hand-to-mouth method. It has done good. It has been of substantial benefit and promoted employment. I believe it will continue to do so, but I believe it does harm in other directions. All unsound legislation must do that. It is a question whether the advantages or disadvantages outweigh one another. In the conditions still prevailing, the advantages in the direction of the removal of unemployment outweigh the disadvantages, although I am very conscious of the disadvantages.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I wished to make some observations upon the general issue, but I was not successful in catching your eye, Mr. Hope before the Financial Secretary spoke. I will, therefore, confine myself to a question which is important not only to my own constituency but to my own country—for the fishing industry is more important to Scotland than to any other country in Europe. I was interested in the extract from the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department quoted by my hon. and learned Friend above the Gangway. It must have been pathetic to listen to that appeal, made then from the back benches by the Parliamentary Secretary which was so little supported on that occasion. How different is the position to-day, when the Parliamentary Secretary for the Overseas Trade Department occupies a position of authority and influence upon the Government bench and when he is supported by a phalanx of Scottish Members who were absent on that occasion. Now he has the opportunity—and he will have the support of Scottish Members of all parties—of putting into effect a scheme the advantages of which he so admirably described. He knows the importance of this industry to Scotland. He knows that
70,000 men and women are employed and that the herring fishing industry—

The CHAIRMAN: Has any application been made on behalf of the fishing industry?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Oh, yes. Under the Overseas Credits Act applications are allowed to be made in respect of any industry. But my constituents are directly interested in the export trade, only in so far as it affects the herring fishing and the Russian market. Under the Resolution, if passed as it stands at present, and without a declaration from the Parliamentary Secretary that it will be extended to Russia, my constituents will incur the risks to which taxpayers are exposed without receiving any of the benefit which would accrue if the export scheme were extended to Russia. The herring fishing industry is the backbone of the fishing industry in Scotland. No less than 75 per cent. of the catch is cured and exported to Germany and Russia. The Russian market is lost at a time when, as a matter of fact, last summer we made good catches in Scotland and Yarmouth. There was a glut of herrings because the fish curers could not get rid of the fish at profitable prices. There is most urgent need of facilities being afforded for recovering the markets we have lost in Russia.

The CHAIRMAN: Is there anything to prevent the scheme operating under the present Act?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Yes. Under the Act at present we are not allowed to apply for export credit in respect of exports to Russia, but we are allowed to apply in respect of Ecuador, Uruguay, Mexico or any other country in the world. We are not allowed to apply in respect of exports to Russia, and that is the one country in the world, apart from Germany, that is really of urgent and substantial importance to this great industry which plays so great a part in the economic life of Scotland. Members for Scottish constituencies regret that an opportunity to put the matter right was missed in 1924. I warned the Socialist Government in March, 1924, that they should not be involved in long, complicated, political and economic negotiations with Russia without taking
steps to extend the exports credits scheme to Russia, a small, modest, simple matter which would have been of substantial assistance to the industries of this country. That remains one of the most serious grounds of criticism of the Socialist admistration of that day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]
The present Government and hon. Members opposite have nothing to cheer unless the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department will get up and stand by his declaration of three or four years ago, and that is an action which we Scottish Members are united in calling upon him to take. As a matter of fact it has nothing to do with the recognition of Russia; it does not require another trade agreement or anything of that kind. The Norwegian Government have taken action to finance the export of herrings without any question of recognition entering into it at all, and what the Norwegian Government can do for their herring fishery, surely the present Government can do for the herring fishery of Scotland.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I well remember making some years ago the appeal quoted by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) from a place not very far from where the hon. Baronet who has just spoken now sits. What I did was to ask that my right hon. and gallant Friend, the senior Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young), who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, should allow exporters to include herrings in the advantages under the Export Credits Scheme. I pointed out that a large-export of herrings in various forms went to Russia, but I never asked for facilities for Russia. I knew then, and I know now, that much of the exports of herrings went to German ports and Baltic ports and ports which are no longer in Russia, and were re-exported from non-Russian ports into Russia. I adhere to what I said then, and it must not be inferred that I asked that Russia should be included in the Exports Credit Scheme. To lose money with a customer once is a disaster; to lose it with the same customer a second time is a stupidity. We have had one lesson.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are consider-
able exports of herrings to-day from the co-operative organisations to Russia, and that not a single bill has failed to be met on the day it was due?

Mr. SAMUEL: That may be so. The wholesale co-operators said in one of the papers that they had granted certain people in Wales a large amount of credit in strike times, but had not got a penny back. In regard to Russia they have been more lucky; it does not follow that the Export Credits Department would be equally fortunate.

Mr. MAXTON: That is a red herring.

Mr. SAMUEL: So far as I am advised by the Export Credits Advisory Committee—

Mr. J. JONES: Who advised you?

Mr. SAMUEL: The gentlemen who advised me, if the hon. Member presses the point, are members of an Advisory Committee, who know more about—

Mr. JONES: Herrings than you do.

Mr. SAMUEL: —as much about the business of credit, and who shall be trusted, than probably any persons in this country. They are managers of the great banks, of the great discount houses, merchant bankers, all well-known and trusted people whose advice it is as well to take. They advised us that it is not safe to lend the taxpayers' credit to Russian trade at the present moment.
But may I bring the Committee back to this point? Why do the hon. Members for Lincoln (Mr. Taylor), Camlachie and East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) make such a point of asking credit for Russia? Is Russia short of credit?

Mr. MACKINDER: Short of herrings.

Mr. SAMUEL: She can get ploughs and herrings if she wishes, and she can pay for them, she already has the credit. Sellers do not need to come to the Export Credit Department in order to sell agricultural implements or herrings to Russia and that is what hon. Members opposite will not realise for a moment. I find that Russia exported to Britain in 1924 a total of £20,000,000 sterling, and bought from Britain £11,000,000 sterling. Therefore she bad a full credit here of £9,000,000 in 1924.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what became of that unexpended credit?

Mr. THURTLE: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that the trade with Russia would not be of much greater magnitude if Russia had greater credit facilities in London?

Mr. SAMUEL: Let us get down to bed rock. I am not going to be deflected from my point. The export of Russian goods to the United Kingdom in 1924 were £20,000,000 sterling, and Russia took from us £11,000,000 sterling. She therefore had £9,000,000 credit with us. In 1925 Russia sent to the United Kingdom £25,000,000 odd sterling, and they took from us £19,000,000 sterling, leaving themselves in credit with us £6,000,000 sterling. Therefore, in the two years they had £15,000,000 sterling at their disposal. That money was enough to buy all the herrings in the world and much agricultural machinery. What have they done with that money? Instead of buying our Scottish herrings or Lincolnshire agricultural implements they probably used that money or credit to buy goods from other countries, and the taxpayers in Britain are now asked to come along and lend Russia their credit in order to set free that Russian credit on their exports to us to buy more goods from our competitors. Do hon. Members realise the humour of that situation after the speech of the hon. Member for Lincoln?

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that all bills guaranteed under the Overseas Trade Act are for trade done between nationals of this country and—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. STEPHEN: But the Minister has given way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. SAMUEL: The point the hon. Member raises has nothing to do with this case. I made a definite statement that in two years there was £15,000,000 sterling to the credit of the Russian Government. Let the Russian Government use that credit to buy British herrings and ploughs with. I will not say it has been used for matters such as
propaganda. I will concede everything. But why do the Russians not use it at Lincoln instead of coming whining to the British taxpayer to find Russia further credit so that Russia can use the £15,000,000, if not for propaganda, to buy boots and ploughs in America and Germany? That is the case in a nutshell.

Mr. STEPHEN: The hon. Gentleman said a minute ago that this balance was here in this country, and then in his next sentence he said it was not in this country but had been sent to America.

1.0 A.M.

Mr. SAMUEL: It is hard work arguing these very intricate economic questions with the Labour party because few of them have ever been in the export business and do not understand the points by personal experience.

Sir SINCLAIR: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is precisely the people who are in this business day in and day out who are asking for these credits?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Do not be insulting; do not be nasty; do not be rude—give civility!

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member for Gorbals to cease interrupting.

Mr. SAMUEL: It has been complained that the Russian Government would have bought a great deal more British goods if they had credits. Here, again, is the same reply, they could have used their owncredit. But what is their own credit worth? There is a case of a person, I am informed, who has recently sold to the Russian Government, say, £100 worth of goods on a three months' bill. The person who sold these goods to Russia has sold them without any confidence in getting the money at the end of three months, and is paying 6 per cent. for three months to insure that £100. That is at the rate of 24 per cent. for the year. In other words, the British seller puts so little faith in Russian Government credit over a period of one year that he is willing to surrender £1 out of every £4 due to him in order to cover risk of losing £4.

Mr. MACKINDER: Does that apply to the Co-operative movement?

Mr. SAMUEL: As a matter of fact, on very broad lines no confidence in Russian credit will be re-established by this Government or any other Government lending to the Russian Government. The only way is for Russia to make it plain to the people who trust her in this country, the ordinary manufacturers, that she will make good her obligations, and honour her national and municipal and private contracts. Up to the present she has repudiated her pre-War under takings. Let us be fair to those who have suffered losses by that repudiation. There are hundreds of millions sterling invested in Russian bonds and securities by British nationals, their savings, in fact—

Mr. MARDY JONES: France and Italy.

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes, from France and Italy, and a large amount of money has been lent by the small British investors for £100, £200, £300, £400 and £500. These loans were not for warlike purposes. They were lent before the War to drain and pave, to light and to provide tramways, and for the great cities of Russia, Kieff, Moscow, Vilna, Nikolaieff, Saratoff. Every one of these loans, quite part from the money invested by British citizens in mines and oil wells and Russian railways, was provided by capital saved by small people in Britain at moderate rates of interest, and now the Russian Government has said she repudiates all pre-war debts. We cannot countenance such conduct towards pre-war investors. I am not justified as Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to allow the taxpayers' money to run the risk of being lost for a second time. That would be stupid, after our experience. I will go further, though I do not want to say too much about it, and would ask hon. Members opposite to inquire or ask Russia to explain what she has done with the credit balances' of nine millions and the six millions—£15,000,000 in all. Why, if they want our goods, have they not used this British credit on their exports? What have the Russians done with that money? If they had it here, why did they not use it for herrings and ploughs'? This country has not too much money nowadays to lend. We require all of our credit balances on our foreign trade to lend to friends who will take our goods and pay for them. The
Dominions would never dream for one moment of going back on their contracts. They need our savings for development. So does South America. We have plenty of demands all over the world for our capital to set up reproductive works in. foreign countries, who have been always our friends and customers, and our honest debtors. They have plenty of profitable openings for our credit and savings, much safer than with a debtor or borrower who has repudiated and declines to recognise obligations. We are not prepared, since we have suffered such abuse of our pre-war confidence, to take the risk of losing money a second time to a country which has ruined the basis of her credit by repudiating the sanctity of contract.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the remarkable speech to which we have just listened. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has explained that it is difficult to put sound financial ideas into the heads of the Labour party. I venture to think that the hon. Gentleman himself was not very clear either in his economics or in the lessons which he proved from these economics. I always hoped that sound finance might be expected to come from him, and yet to-night what an exhibition we have had. He told us that Russia in 1924 sent us 20 millions and only took from us 11 millions, and then he turns to these Benches and asks what have they done with the balance? What has happened to these credits. Why they could buy all the herrings on the land. The point is that there is a balance credit in this country of nine solid millions, and what have they done with it. Why do not they buy the herrings, he asks, and left us to assume that a good solid nine million pounds had gone for good solid political propaganda. He says it is scandalous that they should use the credit of this country for buying goods in other countries and taking them to Russia. No one knows better than those on the opposite benches that if they used that credit of 9 millions for buying goods in America it has been balanced by an export of 9 millions of goods from this country to America. Therefore, in the long run we are no worse off.

Mr. SAMUEL: That is not the point. The point was, and for brevity I will concede what the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, that they are buying goods in America as he assumes, with their British credits; but why do the Russians come along and whin© for the export credits instead of spending here the credits they are using in America?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member is trying to induce these woolly-headed Labour Members to believe there was unemployment created in this country owing to the fact that these Russians would not order their goods here. As a matter of fact, we are more prosperous by sending the goods to America than we should be by sending them to Russia. I always think it is a great mistake to underrate the intelligence of the House of Commons by putting forward false economic arguments. I think it is also a mistake to create prejudice against perfectly legitimate trade by dealing with the character and attitude and methods of the people you want to trade with. The hon Member has told us twice already that the Russians come whining for credits. The people who are sitting on these benches to-night are not here as representing the Russian Government or the Russian people. Whether the Russians are whining for credits or not is of no interest to us. Those we are speaking for are the people in this country who want the occupation of making or finding the goods which the Russians are prepared to buy. If there is any whining in this debate it is the whining of men in the constituencies who are out of work. Hon. Members opposite do not like the Russian people or the Russian Government. The Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department went on to give us almost a historical lecture on the impossibility of doing trade with people who had not paid their debts. He told us of the people who had lost their money through trusting their investments to different Russia cities. Listening to the hon. Member, one would imagine the Russian people, the Russian towns, and the Russian State were the only ones who had repudiated their obligations. There is hardly a country in South America that has not gone through the same phase.

Mr. MACKINDER: What about the United States?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Member prepared to say that we must never do any trade with the State of South and North Carolina because they did not pay up their investors who lent them money? If we conducted our trade on these lines of historical research, there would be no trade left. We cannot afford to take the line suggested by the hon. Gentleman in these days because if we did there would be no trade left. The French and Italian Governments are not paying their debts. I do think that the hon. Gentleman when he intervenes in Debates should try to put the case absolutely fairly. He knows as well as I do that an irresistable case can be made out against the whole of his export credits scheme and that it is not necessary to make any distinction between the countries and businesses which are assisted so long as they are financially and economically sound propositions. The hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is responsible for advancing two million pounds to light the City of Athens. I do not think there is much difference between the financial state of Greece and that of Russia. Any loan, any credit depends naturally on security.
There was one other point which I should like to refer to in the speech of the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was very candid with the Committee. He told the Committee frankly that this Bill was bad economics and bad finance and that he supported it because it was to help unemployment. I quite agree that it is thoroughly unsound finance. If your Trade Facilities Acts really led to more employment in this country there is not a man in this House on either side but would be asking, not for 75 millions but 750 millions for the scheme. It is because we know that it does not increase the sum total of employment in the least, but merely puts business in one line and takes it away from another, that we do not like the scheme.
Take the case of the two millions for the Kentish coalfields scheme. No doubt the expenditure for the coalfields in Kent will lead to the large increase of employment of coal miners in Kent, but my
miners in North Staffordshire will be out of employment. There will be no increase of employment in the county as a whole unless the Kentish coalfields can produce coal more economically than elsewhere. We have in this county for investment in some way yearly about 260 millions of British capital. To make it easier for certain particular businesses to get cheap money would mean merely taking the money from one business and giving it to another. You cause more employment in certain directions and less employment in others. As the hon. Member says, an unsound scheme will never benefit the trade of the country in the long run. We have flown year after year in the face of economic laws and the only result is that the law has come back and hit us on the head like a punching ball. I had hoped, after the Debate we had on this subject last year, that the Government would have come to the conclusion that this Trade Facilities Act should be considered a dead letter. Every year we have a Debate on this question, and more and more hon. Members in all parts of the House become convinced that these are utterly unsound schemes. We have now had an official declaration to that effect from the Front Bench. It is like dram drinking; it grows on you. Once you put a man in charge at the Treasury he says: "We will just have another £5,000,000 for the export scheme, or the Trade Facilities Act," and so it goes on. In the long run the common sense of this House, or of the country, will tell even the present Government that there has been enough of unsound finance—whether it is Protection, or this other form of protection which is entitled the Trade Facilities Act.

Captain MACMILLAN: Except for the purpose of raising one or two points I should not have intervened in this Debate. I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken either into his curious gymnastic exercises, or the site value of the herring on land. I will confine myself to certain points of general admininstration of the Trade Facilities scheme. The right hon. Gentleman showed in his speech that he embodies a curious mixture of modern Socialist and Cohdenist opinions. He is always roused by mention of Russia and then forgets his sound economic doctrine of 30 or 40 years ago. There is one point I am bound to put to the
Financial Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the actual administration of this scheme. Criticism seems to me to be directed, not so much against the general system of trade facilities but rather to the fact that the scheme has been administered in a rather vague manner. What is wanted is a definite plan—not that credit should be given here, or a guarantee made there, to this business or that other business without relation to the economic state of that form of industry and industry as a whole. There is a case in my knowledge which has excited considerable apprehension in some of the heavy industries. We understand that the Treasury, through this Committee, has recently granted a loan for the purpose of completing a large plate-rolling mill in this country at a time when the possible production of modern and economic plant is far greater than the market really needs. It does seem to me very doubtful whether that is a wise course—at a time when heavy industry is suffering not from inefficiency, or need of modern up-to-date plant, but lack of orders—to devote State credit to setting up a rival enterprise in this period of industrial depression. We ought to devote this credit to creating new industries and fresh markets and not for the purpose of diverting employment simply from one locality to another. In respect of this particular case, I would like to ask the Financial Secretary whether he can assure us that it will be the definite policy in the future, as it should have been in the past, that credits in this scheme are to be used in relation to the state of a particular form of industry at the moment; that they are very carefully to be used not to create an unnecessary amount of competition in a market suffering from too much competition, but rather in modernising plant through existing enterprises and not in the creation of campeting enterprises, especially in those industries suffering from lack of sufficient orders.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department to a statemen he made to the House a short time ago. He seemed quite satisfied with the present system whereby the decisions arrived at by the Committee are passed on to the Government for recognition in
this House by vote. What I want to put forward is that we had certain sneering to-night by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department as to the business, capacity of the Gentlemen on these benches. What we are discussing to-night is brought forward as a result of the investigation of three Gentlemen, in whom the Secretary says that he has every confidence. But while he may have confidence in three Gentlemen he may know, or whose business histories he knows, how are we to know whether any one of these Gentlemen has the knowledge which enables him to say whether it is a good thing for the nation to advance £2,000,000 to Pearson and Dorman Long? If these gentlemen did not have the knowledge themselves as to what the Kent coalfield is, had they the advice of experienced men regarding coalfields? Did the Treasury satisfy itself that all proper matters had been gone into before recommending this £2,000,000? When a Government of business men acts like the present Government had done when doing business I can tell them, knowing a little bit of business myself, that that is not the way business should be treated. I cannot imagine the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department handing out £2,000,000, nor even twopence, without knowing exactly what was going to be the result of the investment. I am not blaming him for that characteristic. I want him to apply to the Government what he applies to his own business. We have not had a single word as to the value of this coalfield. I tried to-night to find cut whether the Secretary for Mines had any information about it. He has none. I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He has none. I went round other Members of the House interested in mine-owning. They had no knowledge Yet I am told by the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department that we have no business capacity. It is all very well for anyone on the other side to try and sneer at these benches here, but that is where you miss the boat. You miss the boat every time when you come up against questions like I am putting to you now, because you are incapable of answering, because neither of you know a coalfield from any other kind of field.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must address himself to me.

Mr. HARDIE: We are asked to plunge into a credit of £2,000,000 without the slightest knowledge as to what it is on the part of those who are asking us to vote. For instance, they have not told us anything at all about the defects of the coalfield. So far as the Kent coalfield is concerned, they have not told us that the content of sulphur is so high in that coal that they will not be able to use it like ordinary coal in the furnaces. There is not a word about this; yet they are all supposed to be dead, trained, sincere, honest business men. Well, you are dead; that part is all right. As business men you are corpses. But what are the assets in view of a possible failure in Kent? In giving this credit to the Kent group, I accuse them of fraudulent process. To ask for £2,000,000 for an unproved field of coal is simply so much fraud, but it seems a good thing on business men's part to act as frauds when it is bleeding the British taxpayer. But what about the assets? Suppose this is a failure—as it may quite reasonably be—what have you left? You will be left with some holes in the ground and the coal underneath that cannot be made of any commercial value. What is then to be the position of the taxpayer who has become responsible to the extent of £2,000,000? I would like the business men on the other side to give us some idea as to what they mean when they say they come forward with full confidence in the recommendations.
A question has also been raised about Russia, and I only want to deal with one point on that. The Russian timber that we ought to be having direct has been bought up by the Americans, and England has been flooded during the last fortnight with catalogues of Russian timber. That is timber that we should have had direct if we had had some business men in charge. When you get in touch with those who are doing business in Russia you find there is no complaint about delay in payment. Why, then, should hon. Gentlemen opposite sneer at us on these benches because we are not business men, when they have proved themselves to be absolutely incapable of even organising a single line of business with such a great and wealthy nation as Russia? Even the ordinary moneylender has more knowledge of how to create a credit than has been shown by the present Government.
Even they in their small way can point the way. But here we have a great British Government—a Tory Government at that—with a Front Bench that can claim all kinds of credit for their capacity, especially the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department, who has great business capacity. Yet, to-night we have had a speech from him that would not do credit to a fifth standard school boy in economics. His mind seems to be confused with herrings and finance. It is no use talking about trades facilities in that loose and, I might say, uneducated way. Trade facilities were begun with one object, not to embark upon speculative things such as the coal field, not to lend money to brickworks that became impossible from bad management and not to leave it to three men in whom the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says he has every confidence. I would have had confidence in them had their results been what business men ought to expect. This is no new discussion. Every year in this House we have had the same trouble. Let me say in conclusion that if we are going to get any results at all from trades facilities it is by touching things that are going to increase trade within this country. You can only increase trade within this country by increasing your trade with outside countries, and the only means of doing that is by using your trade credits in that direction. Two years ago when a firm in England wanted to set up a plant in the Malay Islands to produce certain chemicals, the plant was ordered through a firm of engineers in Glasgow. Then as soon as this was seen to be a sound proposal, giving work to people in Glasgow and producing something within the Empire for which we were in great need, the Trade Facilities Act was denied. But when it came to a brickworks doomed to failure it was given, as also is done when it comes to a speculation in a coal field and two millions given. I hope before another year comes round when we discuss this there will be changes on the Front Bench.

Mr. McNEILL: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put.

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMP- SON: (seated and covered): On a point I want to know whether the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) was in order in using the word "fraud" in relation to Messrs. Pearson and Dorman Long. They are a firm who hold a very high reputation in this country. Their most important representative was a Member of this House. He was a Minister of the Crown during the War, and even if "fraud" is a Parliamentary expression in relation to this company's application for credit under this Bill, I feel it my duty to deny the charge and protest against it.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is out of order. If I remember rightly, in the first Parliament I was in the hon.

Member for Derbyshire, Sir Arthur Markham, used a similar expression in regard to persons or authorities in South Africa, and it was not ruled out of order.

Mr. MARDY JONES: (seated and covered): I wish to raise a point of Order. Is it in order to move the Closure when there is an Amendment on the Paper which has not been considered at all and no opportunity has been given to consider it.

The CHAIRMAN: Plenty of opportunity has been given to move such an Amendment in the last three hours and a half.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 160; Noes, 58.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[1.47 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Harland, A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Albery, Irving James
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Philipson, Mabel


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Haslam, Henry C.
Raine, W.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hawke, John Anthony
Ramsden, E.


Betterton, Henry B.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Reid, Captain A. S. C. (Warrington)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Ropner, Major L.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salmon, Major I.


Briggs, J. Harold
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hills, Major John Waller
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Savery, S. S.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Campbell, E. T.
Howard, Captain, Hon. Donald
Shepperson, E. W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Huntingfield, Lord
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jacob, A. E.
Smithers, Waldron


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lamb, J. Q.
Storry-Deans, R.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George B.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Loder, J. de V.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dixey, A. C.
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major A.
Watts, Dr. T.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wells, S. R.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wheler, Major Sir Graville C. H.


Foster, Sir Harry S.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gadie, Lieut.-Colonel Anthony
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Merriman, F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Major R. G, C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W. J.


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hanbury, C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Frederick George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Major Cope and Captain Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Spencer, G. A. (Broxtowe)


Barr, J
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Taylor, R. A.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Thurtle, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Warne, G. H.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lindley, F. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dalton, Hugh
Mackinder, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacLaren, Andrew
Whiteley, W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maxton, James
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Day, Colonel Harry
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Fenby, T. D.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.-Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.



Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Saklatvala, Shapurji

Question put accordingly.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 55.

Division No. 40.]
AYES.
[1.55 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Harrison, G. J. C.
Philipson, Mabel


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Hartington, Marquess of
Raine, W.


Albery, Irving James
Haslam, Henry C.
Ramsden, E.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Hawke, John Anthony
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ropner, Major L.


Betterton, Henry B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Salmon, Major I.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Franham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hilton, Cecil
Savery, S. S.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. McI. (Renfrew, W.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, Capt. W. W. (Wilts, Westb'y)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Howard, Captain Hon. Donald
Skelton, A. N.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Huntingfield, Lord
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smithers, Waldron


Cope, Major William
Jacob, A. E.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Couper, J. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kidd. J. (Linlithgow)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Storry-Deans, R.


Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Lamb, J. Q.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Loder, J. de V.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dixey, A. C.
Looker, Herbert William
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warrender, Sir Victor


Everard, W. Lindsay
Lumley, L. R.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
MacAndrew, Charles Glen
Watts, Dr. T.


Fermoy, Lord
McLean, Major A.
Wells, S. R.


Ford, Sir P. J.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Forestier-Walker. Sir L.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, F. B.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Womersley, W. J.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh



Hanbury, C.
Penny, Frederick George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Margesson and Captain Bowyer.


Harland, A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Barr, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stephen, Campbell


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Taylor, R. A.


Buchanan, G.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Thurtle, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Tinker, John Joseph


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kirkwood, D.
Warne, G. H.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lindley, F. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Windsor, Walter


Fenby, T. D.
Oliver, George Harold



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Barnes.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)




Resolutions agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

SUPPLY.

REPORT [9TH FEBRUARY].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1925–26.

CLASS I.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £7,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 3lst day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Diplomatic and Consular Buildings."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £66,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Customs and Excise, Inland Revenue, Post Office and Telegraph Buildings in Great Britain, and certain Post Offices Abroad."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. J. BECKETT: Before the House agrees to this Vote, which many Members feel to be rather extravagant, I should like to take this opportunity of eliciting a little more information from the responsible Department as to why there should be this sudden excess of zeal which regards it as a necessity that this country should have, in every capital where we are represented, the largest and best Embassy. I think people in this country ought to have the best houses, but you
want to give us rusty tin boxes. I have been wondering about this Vote, because although hon. Members opposite support the idea that we should spend all this upon an Embassy, they do not, when outside the House, support extravagance. They then preach economy. At a time when our own housing problem is so difficult, we should mark matters well before we spend money the country can ill afford on buying ambitious residences in any small capital in which we may be represented. The Ambassador was not in need of a house. He had a Very fine house which had been the residence of an eminent Polish noble. It had been bought not long ago for his occupation. Instead of saying "I should like a nice new house for the dignity of my country and the honour of my land, but as times are tight we will leave the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is in great trouble and having to raid everything he can find; I will not worry him this year "—instead of saying that, they say, "Buy this house." We were told on the Committee stage that after this house was purchased we would be let in for the expense of garages and servants' quarters. We are moving the Ambassador out of a commodious house, good enough for nobility, into a new house where there is no adequate accommodation and for which we shall be let in for further expenditure. I do not want hon. Members in their desire to get home to squander public money without taking the trouble to consider it. We have been accused on this side of being squander-maniacs, although we saved more money when in power than you have done. It is typical of the method by which the business of the country is being con-
ducted at present that Members who make the loudest cry outside this House about economy make the loudest cry inside the House when they are asked to sit for an hour overtime to consider economy.

HON. MEMBERS: Trade union wages.

Mr. BECKETT: Many of you get more than trade union members—

Mr. SPEAKER: Will the hon. Member please address the Chair?

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask that constant interruptions should not be made?

Mr. SPEAKER: It will prevent interruptions if the Chair be addressed.

Mr. BECKETT: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that in my desire to afford hon. Members information I should have neglected to address the Chair. In the Debate we were told that the purchase of this house would save us rent. We were paying £1,200 a year for the house in which the Ambassador lives. This is a frivolous estimate at the present time and in the present financial crisis. It is a waste of public money, and I ask the House to regard it in that light. This Government will only make an effort to economise when it is convinced that its followers will not follow it into every kind of foolish extravagance and that they are determined to impose the iron heel of economy about which they preach so much to the country outside.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think it is quite monstrous that every speech at this hour of the night is always greeted with loud jeers from Members who want to go home. Hon. Members are at perfect liberty to go home, and if they do not wish to take part in the serious deliberations of this House they might at least refrain from interrupting those who do. If there ever was an occasion when this House ought to be serious it is when they are trying to reduce expenditure in order to save the trade of this country. We have got to cut our coat according to our cloth, and here is an item which we really ought to scrutinise with some amount of care. I am glad to see on the Front Government Bench the Deputy-Chief Whip (Colonel Gibbs), because I believe that he has been having, even to-day, a somewhat agitated interview with some of his
followers on a similar piece of extravagance. The Press happened to get hold of it and happened to be able to inspire the bulk of hon. Members opposite with a wholesome feeling for economy in Government expenditure, with the result, as I hope, that they have now persuaded the Government to drop that particular piece of expenditure of £200,000. But here is a case of expenditure of £7,500, as being part of an expenditure of £17,000, on buying a house for a Minister at Helsingfors, the minute capital of a State which is large but of which the population is extremely small—only between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000. We are asked by this Government to spend £17,000 on housing our Minister there. I would ask hon. Members to reflect for one moment what £17,000 will buy in this country in the way of a house, and then translate that into Finland where people are much more modest in the way they live than the ordinary run of rich people here, and think then that we are spending this money at a time when we ought to be looking at every penny, when we protest against spending £200,000 on a sports ground; and apparently any protest against that expenditure is to be met by a form of "barracking" to Which this House always inclines at these hours, when really the actions of the Government in passing Estimates of this sort need to be most carefully scrutinised.

Mr. THURTLE: Before the House decides this point, will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tell us whether, before this expenditure was incurred, they took steps to obtain from Lord Weir a quotation for a suitable house to be built for the Ambassador at this place?

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is rather discourteous to a colleague of mine for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary not to answer. I can excuse the Financial Secretary, because he has had a hard day as compared with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His subordinate has earned his money, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has come in comparatively fresh, ought to answer a very simple elementary question. Has this eminent gentleman, Lord Weir, whom we have all heard praised for his great patriotism, been asked to tender, to see whether he could make or build a house cheaper
than these others? A steel house evidently is desirable for the working people to live in, and I am sure that what the right hon. Gentlemen advocate for working people they would advocate for an Ambassador abroad. It is a very simple question, which I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to answer.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend (Colonel Wedgwood), who used to be on the Front Bench but is now relegated to the back benches, on one point only, and that was that he thinks this £200,000 is wasteful in regard to the sports of the Civil Service. I disagree. But if hon. Members can find reason to attack the expenditure of that money on people here, surely they can find a greater reason against spending this money abroad on a much less useful object than the object as proposed by the Government in the sports field. I hope the Government supporters will support us in our real economy to-night.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not guilty of any form of shirking my proper duties, for I would remind hon. Gentlemen that I have already worked one shift to-day and I am now coming on for the second spell. With regard to the important question which the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) has asked me, I am luckily in a position to give him a decided answer. The question to which he referred, whether Lord Weir was consulted as to the possibility of constructing a cheaper residence at Helsingfors, was not neglected, but on careful consideration of all the local conditions and the trade union customs of that country, it was decided, on the whole, that we should not at this stage embark on so dangerous an experiment.

Mr. MAXTON: I do not want to delay the Government in getting this Vote, but I certainly think, if there was not an honourable undertaking, at least the hope was created in our minds that the Government representative would at the Report stage answer a question which he could not answer at the previous stage of the discussions on this particular Vote. The price of this house was quoted to the Government in Finnish marks, and when we were discussing it there was no Member on the Front Bench who knew what a Finnish mark was. We understood that on the Report stage that
information would be obtained and placed before the House.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): I have the information here; 13,100,000 marks represents £16,146.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House proceeded to a Division—

Major Cope and Captain Bowyer were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but there being no Member willing to be nominated as Teller for the Noes, Mr. Speaker declared that the Ayes had it.

REPORT [10TH FEBRUARY].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1925–26.

CLASS I.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £12,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of Employment Exchange and Insurance Buildings, Great Britain (including Ministries of Labour and Health)."

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £158,345, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1926, for Expenditure in respect of sundry Public Buildings in Great Britain, not provided for on other Votes, including Historic Buildings, Ancient Monuments, and Brompton Cemetery."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes after Two o'clock, a.m.